---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 11/24/2002 8:00:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20
RNossaman@cox.net writes:
> Subj:Re: Belly rail crown - Why???=20
> Date:11/24/2002 8:00:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF=3D"mailto:RNossaman@cox.net">RNossaman@cox.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF=3D"mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF=3D"mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Ron writes
> >>There's nothing wrong with beveled rims, but if you find no performance
> >>advantage to beveling rims and are building a piano, you wouldn't be too
> >>eager to spend the time to cut the bevel.
> > Dale wrtes
> > I agree but there has to be some surface cut anyway flat or beveled=20
> > and As we've discovered through lengthy discussions some things are=20
> > easier than others to determine as to there actual performance benefit.=20
> > Stwy's diaphragmatic sound board design is a case in point. Murky water=20
> > perhaps but as I recall the treble edge rasten was raised to meet the=20
> > edge of the board so as to eliminate a bending strain by so doing. The=20
> > idea was that it freed up the board.
> Ron writes
> You've put a couple of boards in Steinways. Have you ever found the treble=
=20
> edge rasten to meet the edge of the board in any of them without having to=
=20
> force the board down some considerable distance?
You know quite well there is some forcing of the bass and treble=20
corners to get them down but when the edges do contact the rim the two=20
surface areas are somewhere in the same relative plane and certainly more so=
=20
than purely flat surface. Besides we were discussing performance benifits
Dale writes
What's the proof? Probably subjective ears but hey we all do a good=
=20
deal=20
> of our authenticating that way I.e. improvements in raw hammers by=20
> >voicing, tonal improvements from new strings. In the case of the stwy=20
> >experiment the same type of subjectivity was used. Even if they used same=
=20
> >action in 2 different pianos the sound board wood is different, possibly=20
> >e.m.c.s'. I believe there concessus was it was tonally better. I couldn't=
=20
> say.=20
> >You, Del or Ron O might have A different slant on these findings. I Bet=20
> you Do.
> Ron writes
> Sure I do. They were making these subjective evaluations in exclusively=20
> compression crowned boards, in controlled conditions, over a very short=20
> period of time. That's a whole lot of limiting assumptions when you're=20
> looking for performance improvements in something that's supposed to last=20
> as long as pianos are expected to. Here's an onion, a pound of hamburger,=20=
a=20
>=20
> teaspoon of salt, and a can of chicken stock. Make bouillabaisse.
Huh?
> =20
Dale writes
At any rate the best judge of that kind of subject determination in=20
> my mind woud be the guys in the factory who were so familiar with the old=20
> > design compared to the new one that there opinion would carry some real=20
> weight
> Ron writes
> I've always had a problem with this thinking. When would the guys in the=20
> factory working with the old ways ever get any experience with new ways to=
=20
> refine their opinions? What you will most likely get here is "This is the=20
> way we've always done it, so this way is best." And isn't that what we=20
> hear, for the most part?
Wow I totally disagree with you on this. To assumne that belly guys=20
and final voicers can't tell the difference from piano to piano especially=20
over time or have a valid opinion is a huge assumption or perhaps demeaning.
>=20
> Ron writes
> >>Why would you thin the board edges in the first place (except maybe in=20
> the
> >>bass if you don't float it), and why would it be less desirable to undul=
y
> >>stress these edges than it would a thicker edge.
> >>Tail thinning from the corner,around behind the bass bridge and clear u=
p=20
>=20
> >>through the curve but leaving the top treble end thicker as you well kno=
w=20
>=20
> >>is fairly common practice in boards where tails aren't floated which is=
=20
> >>the majority of pianos that get restored in America. My personal=20
> >>experience is that thinning in these areas does provide a significant=20
> >>performance gain in sustain and clarity in conventionally=20
> >>reproduced belly systems. Meaning In my case rib crowned boards at 5=20
> >>&1/2 to 6% emc
> Ron writes
> That's why I said "except in the bass if you don't float it". To many=20
> folks, thinning the panel edge means thinning the edge all around, which=20
> won't do you any favors in the treble. Just looking for clarification.
I know first rate rebuilders who thin the curve, spine, bass corner and=
=20
belly rail with exception of the high treble corner. Their sustain=20
charachteristics are exceptional. Even a high treble can require some=20
thinning depending on your starting point.
Dale writes
I think it an important distinction to the readers on the list=20
> that particularly You and Del are using techniques that are, at least i=
n=20
> > some cases, a radical departure from conventional belly replacement. You=
r=20
>=20
> > focus is completly on belly redesign which is great and many will=20
> > hopefully incorporate your ideas and find out if this a desirable=20
> > direction they wish to go.
>=20
Ron writes
> Not so fast there. What you write about soundboard replacement=20
> indicates to me that you are doing considerable re-design work yourself.=20
> You are=20
> thinning panels in the bass, but not in the treble. You are crowning ribs,=
=20
> rather than compression crowning. You are laminating ribs. You are using=20
> sugar pine in the bass and spruce in the treble. You are using tighter rib=
=20
> radii than was originally evident in the bass (from compression crowning),=
=20
> and multiple radii - considerably tighter in the treble than in the bass.=20
> This doesn't sound an awful lot like accepting the subjectively arrived at=
=20
> wisdom of the factory guys relying on the time honored old methods to me.=20
> If any stress that can be avoided is undue stress, then any departure from=
=20
> traditional designs and methods is radical. You is in that category too=20
> Albert.
Ok ,first I didn't mean any offense if I inadvertantly pushed a button=20
but ,since I opened this can Let me attempt clarify "radical redesign" and=20
"extra costs". I aslo have respect for the work you guys are doing and=20
moreover your willingness to share it on list. As I've told you before I've=20
changed some methods and experimented with others due to the thoughts and=20
ideas shared.=20
When I think of radical design I'm thinking of adding a sweeping=20
bellyrail to every board design,( this is hard and time consumning)=20
reorienting the board grain angle,changing/calculating a new number of ribs=20
and consequently filling rib notches , cutting others and floating every=20
tail. I've done some of this and it adds a fair bit of time both in plannin=
g=20
and execution. But so far I've eaten the cost of these items mentioned to=20
some degree in exchange for knowledge. Laminated ribs are quite time=20
consumning and as a general practice I'm not doing it unless I have=20
convienent sized lumber to use. The rest I'll own ie. the rib crowning, rib=20
dimension changes and radii, less Panel compression and with the exception o=
f=20
an occasional tail float these don't add significantly in cost to a=20
compression crowned method but add significantly to the longevity factor of=20
which most, these days are convinced of an improvement.
I didn't ever say I was relying on the wisdom of the factory guys I just=20
didn't discount that they had an opinion and knew a thing or two.=20
I've drawn the distinction as clear as I can at least the way I think of=20
it. All the methods and modifiactions are valid I'm just saying that at=20
times were coming at it from slightly different directions which may be=20
confusing to readers and those trying to bite off too much too soon as they=20
start this journey.
Yes Guilty of appling some modern (radical) techniques.
Dale writes
> For some the tonal difference may not be what satisfys them compared to=20
> >what is considered good to them.
> Ron writes
> Just as the tonal differences between traditional Steinway construction an=
d=20
>=20
> what you are doing may not be considered good to them. How can this be=20
> determined before the fact just by the construction method and design?
It can't . the results have to speak for themselves . Did I hear an=20
agreement there? Sustain , power and clarity are the proof.
Dale writes
Also every one has to start somewhere. The redesign cost could be a >=20
> significant impediment adding cost to an already pricey project.What's the=
=20
> difference in your prices between reproducing a compression=20
> crowned Steinway board (as exactly as you can), and producing a board with=
=20
> the design modifications you prefer?
Not that much=20
And incidentally, why do you prefer > these design modifications ov=
er=20
> the original design?
Longevity,power suatain and clarity
Dale writes
> It would be good for us who have heard much about the superior=20
> > design traits in these hybrid board systems to actually experience it fo=
r=20
>=20
> > ourselves. As yet I've not heard anyone weigh in on this illusive=20
> > experience. Being a sustain freak myself I'd love to hear the improved=20
> > sustain and color you both speak of.
>=20
> I've read comments on this list from folks who have heard examples of Del'=
s=20
>=20
> work. Haven't you? I did take my first radical re-design prototype to KC,=20
> for a rebuilders' skills spot. It had some problems I've since learned to=20
> avoid, but the killer octave and treble wasn't among them.
No I must have missed it.
>=20
> Go listen to Del's A. You're not that far away.
Good idea
>=20
>=20
> >>Isn't Floating a tail simply a removal bending strains and stiffnesses=20
> >>caused by panel restrictions due to a clamped edge system?
>=20
> It's a lot more than that. It's disconnecting the panel from the rim=20
> altogether.
My point exactlyWere saying the same thing here
>=20
>=20
>=20
> >>How is a board stressed more by a rim beveled 1=B0 less than the
> >>angle at which the rim meets the panel under load, than it is by a rim
> >>beveled 1=B0 more? Doesn't compute.
> >> Ron N
> >
> >
> > I think you misunderstood my thought. Or maybe I did. The rim bevel=
s=20
>=20
> > on stwys roughly equating 1 & 1/2 degrees will mate with a board in the=
=20
> > 60ft. crown range with no load. What I was trying to say was that a=20
> > lesser board angle due to string load might more closely match the crown=
=20
> > of the board under load. Yes I see your point though.
>=20
> Yep, bent up, or bent down is still bent.
>=20
>=20
> > It is however interesting as to how much faux crown can be exhibite=
d=20
>=20
> > in an old board only to have it disappear completly upon it's removal=20
> > from the case. A condition or anomaly I attribute soley to the rim=20
> > bevel capturing the rib ends and panel edge. It does have some ,albeit,=
=20
> > small influence. Any way I don't dismiss it completly.
> > Regards
> > Dale Erwin
>=20
> That puts it in the realm of how much stress is undue stress. As you said,=
=20
> it's faux crown.
>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Ron N
>=20
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/56/ec/6b/fc/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC