<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=UTF-8 http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charse= t=utf-8"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2730.1700" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV> <DIV>        =   Phil</DIV> <DIV>        = I appreciate your comments and & wished to share a few of my = own. I know I'm taking  usual risks by offering somewhat tran= sparent observations of my work and others. If I'm unclear or (often the cas= e) let me know.</DIV> <DIV>     Though I've always&nbsp= ;employed some form of rib crowning and have enjoyed many of these board as = much as CC crowned board I've had other that I didn't enjoy as much.(which i= s also true of CC board of course)  I'm sorry  if this burst = any ones bubble but this is honest assesment. Some of my earlier s= ubtle disappointment were possibly due also to inadequate amounts of bearing= which John Hartman was responsible for kindly enlightening me. Since then&n= bsp;I feel the results have been remarkably improved, IMHO.</F= ONT></DIV> <DIV>   When I first started making my own&= nbsp;boards about 8 years ago I was crowning my ribs less and drying more. P= robably about 5% emc. As time went on I started drying less (bout 6%emc)&nbs= p;and crowning more, using a progressively tighter crown, as well as taller = ribs. All this to say I'm still learning interesting stuff realizing I = ain't never going to now it all.</DIV> <DIV>   It may be of interest, it is to me,=  that some models of S&S's and inherent designs charachteristics le= nd themselves more easily to sound board replacement, IMHO. I mean that= within reason no matter what you do the sound is good. I'm thinking of Mode= l A- 2 & 3's. Where the string load and mass of the board work well toge= ther and low amounts of crown/ bearing seem to work as well higher amou= nts of crown/bearing whether they be Rc or CC.   The O on the othe= r hand, and this is strictly my subjective opinion, does better with a flatt= er crown and more moderate bearing loads. L's are more easly given board tra= nsplantss as are wide tail cousins the A's. Perhaps this is why the O was di= scontinued</DIV> <DIV>  What got me to thinking about this stuff = Phils post and a 1961 model L in a church that was "sonically" amazing = and also a 1940 Concert Dept. - D at the symphony both with origin= al boards. I've rebuilt the D, action and strings. It has no visible compres= sion damage, has a lot of crown and bearing. It sounds as good any/ many&nbs= p;D I've heard. Jeremy Denk, a young pianist from New York, played Taic= hoskys piano concerto no. 1 in B flat minor.</DIV> <DIV>  Jeremy is young pianist with amazing skil= ls. We spoke about  things in the piano he liked, such as the= power and warmth of the piano. I voiced a few notes at the break he said su= cked and after voicing he agreed they'd improved to his liking. &n= bsp;He also liked the tone of bass& tenor up to the break. He&= nbsp;then played thru the killer regions saying he wished it could sound mor= e like the tenor which he liked very much. He confessed he'd take = the piano home any day.</DIV> <DIV>   By the way this piano has real= ly a quite acceptable killer region. I've pulled the hammers into = a horshoe shape on about 10 or 12 notes with the sharpest bend in the shape = is toward the keyboard at note 64. This helps not only power but sustain&nbs= p;plus  tone color when shifted.</DIV> <DIV>    Ahh my point. I sat thru the = performance thoroughly enjoying the sound of a gracefully aging CC= board detecting only sweet & intense musical clarity ,power ,warm tone = color and amazing projection of that sound on every single note including th= e killer octave.  Any slight objections observed at the keyboard simply= melted away in performance. How long will this 63 yr old board produce this= kind of sound? I think a long time. This kind of tone in a S&S piano is= why they are no 1 in solo piano performance not marketing. </ST= RONG></DIV> <DIV>  Another other point is that that if = a small shop  were to diligently monitor  emc's more closely than = mass production facilities, say to no more or less than 5% at time of r= ibbing & using a apropriately curved deck, more of the A plus = pianos Phil referrs to would possibly be seen without so much damage. That i= s providing diligent climate control is used. Thats true of both CC &RC = boards</DIV> <DIV>   Also many1960 and 70s S&S's use= d sitka boards with sugar pine ribs and were made by guys seemingly&nbs= p; paying attention to the important stuff. These pianos sound as good = as any vintage ax I've seen especially in the sustain dept.<= /DIV> <DIV>   Another observation is that  o= f the S&S's , Masons, Yamahas & others that had the best&n= bsp;sounding CC boards  IMO had some signs of compression in the panel.= The ones I've observed with no cracks or compression but had= an otherwise perfect looking flat panel came out often but n= ot always sounding inferior. A case of high emc's at ribbing. I don't k= now that Yamahas Are cc crowned. I rather think they are not, never the less= the ones I like most have some compression squishing going on that is obser= vable when looking carefully across the panel.</DIV> <DIV>    Regards--Dale= </DIV> <DIV>  </DIV> <DIV>  </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue = 2px solid">>>I think Mark Potter's</= FONT> summary covered the argument pretty well and is >>consistent = with what advocates of rib crowning have been saying.... >>When a c= oncert pianists goes through 25 >>pianos in order to pick one what = is it that they are listening for?  The >>marked differences i= n the instruments may well be a function of >>preparation, touchwei= ght dynamics etc..  But you can be sure that the tone >>of eac= h is also a function of how effectively the soundboard is working. >&g= t;If we agree that a rib crowned board sounds as good as a compression board= , >>all things being equal, then their would be no reason to choose= one over >>the other. No reason, sonically speaking. <BR= >>>   The only issue to consider, then, would be how consist= ently can >>one method produce good results over the other, and wha= t is the likelihood >>that one system will function to a higher lev= el over time than the other. >>The science strongly suggests that t= he rib crowned board has advantages in >>those two areas.... &gt= ;> >>David Love These are the reasons to choose rib crown= ed (RC) boards over compression crowned (CC) boards, all things being eq= ual.  And there's the rub, and why I believe that we have these end= less discussions on this subject.  Each individual builder or rebui= lder, or each individual factory (or its powers that be) have to become = convinced that all other things are equal between the two systems. = No discussion or argument, no matter how compelling, is going to co= nvince me personally that one system is better than another, sonically s= peaking.  Because, for me, the ultimate arbiter of that decision is= my ears, and through my ears my heart (or other word you'd care to subs= titute), not my brain. I think we don't distinguish in these discussi= ons among classes of pianos.  I think the distinction is important.=   The potential differences in sound between RC and CC only really = matter in pianos of the highest level, the ones utilized by artists or f= ine amateur pianists.  These players are highly discerning and high= ly opinionated about the sounds that they hear.  And they're lookin= g for something beyond the average piano sound, something which is diffi= cult, if not impossible to describe.  They would probably say somet= hing like, I can't put into words what I'm looking for, but I know it wh= en I hear it.  As David mentioned, artists will search through 25 p= ianos (they'd probably be willing to search through many more) to get th= e one that they want.  They're not terribly interested in consisten= cy. In my experience, they prefer inconsistency, or what they would call= difference. They don't care that the other 24 pianos aren't so good <BR= >if they can find the one that is.  And they probably wouldn't think <B= R>that there was something wrong with the other 24, just that those pian= os were more suited to someone else.  They probably would be intere= sted in longevity, but only if you could assure them that they wouldn't = have to make any sonic sacrifices to get it.  These pianos represen= t a tiny percentage of the piano population, maybe 1 % or less.  Wh= at I might call an A+ piano. The remaining 99% of the piano world fal= ls into the A- and below category, where these distinctions don't matter= .  At the lowest levels, these pianos are abysmal.  At the hig= hest level, the A- level, they are well designed and well made from good= materials.  I won't name any brands, but we all know these pianos.=   There are many of them around.  The are very acceptable and = serviceable pianos, even for very good pianists.  They sound good a= nd they play well.  It's the kind of piano that after playing for a= few minutes I refer to as a nice piano.  And they are, but they do= n't have that spark, or that something special that lifts them from good= or nice to great or inspirational.  I respect them intellectually = but my ears and my heart are not in love.  And that's what artists = are looking for, a piano that their ears and hearts can love.  And = I haven't yet become personally convinced that a RC soundboard can produ= ce this. What it would take to convince me is to play on a piano with= a RC soundboard that I love, or that ranks among the best pianos that I= 've played.  That's not to say that this can't or won't happen, but= it hasn't happened yet.  So, I can't profess to being a true RC be= liever at this point.  It may just be a matter of exposure.  I= 've played on hundreds, if not thousands, of pianos.  Most of these= have probably had CC soundboards, as far as I know.  I've only pla= yed on a handful of pianos that I knew for certain had RC boards in them= .  Those pianos fell into the nice, even very nice, category, but n= ot great. So, as far as I know, my favorite pianos, the ones that live i= n my memory and serve as my reference standard if you will, have had CC = boards.  Perhaps if I'd played on hundreds of pianos with RC boards= and only a handful of pianos with CC boards then all my favorite pi= anos would have RC boards.  I can't say. For A- pianos or below,= the evidence presented here has convinced me that RC should be the meth= od of choice.  If you're a factory that is building low to upper mi= d range pianos, then I see no reason not to use RC boards.  If you'= re attempting the sonic pinnacle of an A+ piano, where sound matters mor= e than consistency or longevity, then I am not yet convinced that RC is = the method of choice.  If you're a rebuilder, your choice is harder= .  You're not a factory.  You probably don't want to make the = choice that 10 % of your output is going to be great and 90 % not so goo= d (those percentages are random for talking purposes, feel free to subst= itute your own numbers). Every piano needs to turn out well.  Even = if you believed that CC offered a bit more sonic potential, you might pr= efer to opt for very good 100% of the time, rather than great 10 % of th= e time. I suppose that one way to settle this would be to have a high= quality maker make several of the same model, half with RC boards, and = half with CC boards.  Bring in some good pianists and let them try = all the pianos and pick out the 5 or 10 that they liked best.  If t= he 5 pianos that all the pianists chose were all CC board pianos, then I= think the conclusion is that you need to use a CC board if you're b= uilding artist quality pianos, and accept whatever downside goes with th= at choice.  If the favorite pianos were a mixture, but all the numb= er one pianos were CC, you might conclude that CC has the potential to b= e slightly better, but perhaps not markedly so, so do we as a factory wa= nt to live with its downside?  If the favorites were a random mixtu= re, then I think you would conclude there's no sonic advantage of one sy= stem over another.  So there would seem to be no reason to continue= using CC boards.  If the favorites were all RC, then I think the c= onclusion is even more obvious. Until something like this happens, or= until each individual somehow comes across a RC soundboard piano that c= onverts him, these discussions will continue without any conclusions.<BR= > Phil Ford PS  All of my comments here would apply equally w= ell to laminated boards vs solid boards.  For A- and below pianos I= see no reason (other than perhaps cost) to use a solid board.  For= me, the jury's still out on laminated boards for A+ pianos. -- <= BR>Phillip Ford Piano Service and Restoration 1777 Yosemite Ave - 130<= BR>San Francisco, CA  94124 ________________________________________= _______</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV></BODY></HT= ML>