<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" = xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" = xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; = charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 10"> <link rel=File-List href="cid:filelist.xml@01C51C56.01BFA830"> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="time"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="date"/> <o:SmartTagType = namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style>  </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple = style='tab-interval:.5in' id="role_body" bottomMargin=7 leftmargin=7 topmargin=7 rightMargin=7> <div class=Section1> Well, I guess = what I mean is that even though you are not doing the boards like Steinway does them = (or did them), nobody is jumping up and down saying that it doesn’t = sound like a Steinway.  Moreover, = they are saying some very nice things about how the pianos are sounding.  My = compliments.  The question when all this = started was whether the various approaches were just different ways to skin a cat, = so to speak, that there is nothing inherent in the CC method that produces = that “Steinway” sound.   Given a = Steinway rim, there are various ways to get there.  From what you describe as your methodology and from the responses = to the product, it would seem that yours is some evidence to that.  That’s all.  <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> And thanks, the mountains were = great.  No = pianos!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <st1:PersonName>David = Love</st1:PersonName> davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </div> -----Original = Message----- From: = pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of <st1:PersonName>Erwinspiano@aol.com<= /font></st1:PersonName> Sent: = <st1:date Month="2" Day="26" Year="2005">Saturday, February 26, = 2005</st1:date> <st1:time Hour="21" Minute="30">9:30 PM</st1:time> To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: Pictures of Intereting Sound board designs (Modified = byKentSwafford) <o:p> </o:p> <div>  <b= >    Hi = Dave<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  Well I tend to be an experiential type human & I = know only that  when I  hear something I like I expore = it.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  <o:p></o:p= > </div> <div>   > Well since I can't get close enough to any body elses  redesigns to hear them I have incrementally decided to = expereiment in that direction. So I need to do my own & make up my own mind. I'm = a bit nervous about the outcome as it's a huge financial risk & my yes , = it is my piano. I have been thinkng about the Killer octave problems & I = surmise by conjecture & intimation from other that what the remedy is is more = support. so The Long A design is my solution , hopefully. I may be dismally disappointed.<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>   > Do = you mean the sound speaks for it self regardless of the means to get there? Then = I'd agree.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>  You mean other than they really like = them?<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   = No I wouldn't. I.E.I've = already stated my tonal preference for my Boards with white spruce ribs = Subjective though it may be I've heard enough of them to know & all compreesion = boards are made with sugar pine of which I've used in the past as well. Also = with good results but the white gives the sound more clarity. = JMHO.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>     I my find that all the usual stuff ,as = you say, that I do in my usual protocol may indeed prove to be a better formula = for me since it's producing a good outcome & is a known = quaantity.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>     I'm always one to but the better mouse = trap , so I'll see, & I will report back with candor & honesty.... = After the piano is sold...grin<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <div>  Well all I know  is that in many of the older designs I hear the most sustain & musical = life in are from these old boards. You explain it to me please. = Yes,  They were probably compression crowned. I don't  know if the ribs were crowned  except perhaps a little on the Ludwig. I haven't even = checked the crown. But I will & report after I take the strings off. Fair = enough.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>    I do think that in any case the number of = taller ribs gives more stiffness to the crown support. & even when a board like = those mentioned has only little crown left they stil have amazing tonal = properties. I'm just trying to observe these design when they strike me as = excellent  sounding & then try to find a reason. Simply with more ribs in the = system adds more weight& stiffness & thus more mechanical = impedance. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   In the Ludwig I don't find any weak notes. This = piano is 100 years old. Original strings.  So all the concerns with = longevity considering even slight design improvements is almost a mute & funny point to me. I know my boards won't cave in even in 75 = yrs so for me  Its about the sound... Yes! If these other designs give = me even more of what I want = then.................<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   Regards & Wecome back from the  Mountains = Dave<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>   Dale<o:p></o:p></spa= n> </div> <blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid blue = 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt; margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net <o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div>  <o:p></o:p= > </div> </div> </body> </html>