>Seems like in the end we wont "know" for sure unless what you propose is done Ron. * Right, and that might not tell us exactly what we're looking for either. >However there are indicators, and "informed" assumptions such as Eds that >simply can not be discounted any more then you say they can be confirmed unless >your "experiment" is carried out. * Well, I confess I deleted Ed's post before I got wrapped up in this, so I'm not exactly sure what he said. Any chance you could send me a private repeat? >What Mark proposes is kind of a half way there >thing. One assumes that Yamaha constructs its different models using similiar >technichs and materials. At the very least one has to assume that one Yamaha >model has more in common thus then say a Yamaha and a Petrof (couldnt resist >that comparision.. grin). If "listening" to the Yamaha variants with the V-Pro >plate visa vi those without points further in the direction of Eds claim then >that is just another hint. If not, well it certainly weakens his argument. * You're absolutely right Richard. In fact, I don't know why they even bother with the entire C series when the GH1 is a soooo much cheaper way to get the "Yamaha Sound". The other piano in their line would be the CFIII, naturally. Trouble is, is it the plate, or the dozen or so other different design details, similar as they must be under the Yamaha name, that makes them sound so much different? That sort of puts us back where we started, doesn't it? I'm not saying there is no difference in hardness and internal damping characteristics between sand cast and V-Pro plates. I thought it was pretty well established that there is, and that it very probably does affect the sound produced. What I am saying is that I don't think the difference is as critical and discernable as a whole lot of other design details that differ from model to model, and even the minute differences in materials and execution from piano to piano within the same model. Do *all* the Yamaha models with the V-Pro plates make the same objectionable noises? If the plate is the cause, shouldn't they? That's similar to the question Mark asked, and I'd still have to say that from what I've heard that I consider objectionable, I'd be more likely to look to the hammers, scaling, and front duplex as the likely cause. Do *all* the pianos in any given model line sound alike? Do they *all* have the same zings and pings, or lack thereof, each the same as the other? Sure, we can come up with two instances where pianos of a certain model had similar objectionable noises, but we can also come up with two instances where pianos of the same model did not, even though they had the same plate type and overall design. I'm just having a hard time seeing how this points to the plate as the culprit in the instance of the two objectionable sounding pianos. Is it a recessive gene in the pianos that don't exhibit the problem? Hey, I could be dead wrong here, it's certainly happened before, but, pending another look at Ed's post, or any other evidence to the contrary, I'll have to go with what I think is more likely. >Richard Brekne >I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F. >Bergen, Norway BTW, I think I'm beginning to like the recessive gene theory. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC