<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2668" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: =
Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=rol=
e_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Ron</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> I'd have to agree. The first wide bellied
disappointment that comes to mind is the Mason AA. Also the BB is also a des=
ign
with IMHO narrow build parameters. If ever a piano need less soundboard acre=
age
it surely is this. I like the idea that the bridge is closer to the middle o=
f
the panel & rib lay out which, is one advantage to adding a bass cut-off=
but
the massive length of the ribs (ie 46 or 48 inches in the bass corner preclu=
des
much enduring or significant crown stability. I've heard some of these that =
were
set up wrong in one fashion or another & they frankly , to my ear , soun=
ded
like a 7 ft spinet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Unless steps are taken to add a bass
cut-off thereby shortening the ribs & adding a fish with some extr=
a
treble ribs , the tone remains unfocused. Appropriate & ampl=
e
amounts of bearing are of course, in my mind, what drives the engine&nb=
sp;
of any good setup & the BB is no exception.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> I will say that a few of the asian wide
bellied small grands seem to have some very amazing sustain in the tre=
ble.
I looked at a schaefer 5 ft the other day which belongs to my apprentice.Hey=
I'm
no fan of schafers but honestly the sustain doesn't get better the this=
one. I had put Isaac hammers in it many years ago & they were getting al=
l
that was to be had. The bass is of course a disappointment but the body of t=
he
piano was so wide you could hardly call it a curve. A true
freakazoid</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> It had a sitka panel & I didn't look at the r=
ibbing
but something was working except of course the bass tenor cross over .=
Usual trash design. but the melody range was just amazing for a small
piano.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3> Dale</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Ron Overs Writes</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><=
FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=
=2>There is
one factor which might be an advantage with the overstrung <BR>layout. It
allows for longer speaking lengths in the low tenor, <BR>provided that the=
bass bridge is positioned far enough away from the <BR>straight side to al=
low
room for the longer tenor scale and its <BR>accompanying hitch pin belt. S=
ome
will argue that you can have a long <BR><STRONG><FONT size=3>scale on th=
e
plain wire string section of a straight or oblique <BR>layout provided the=
case is a wide bellied design, but I've not been <BR>particularly impresse=
d
with a number of the wide bellied cases I've <BR>heard in recent years. I
realise that the examples I'm thinking of <BR>are <U>overstrung, but I thi=
nk
the same lack of tonal focus would plague</U> <BR>the straight strung layo=
ut
if one were to use a wide belly.<BR></FONT></STRONG><BR>The wide bellied
fashion is really raging in piano-design land at the <BR>moment. But its a=
fashion I have no intention of taking up.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>