Belly rail crown - Why???

[Erwinspiano@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 11/25/2002 5:27:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
RNossaman@cox.net writes:


> Subj:Re: Belly rail crown - Why??? 
> Date:11/25/2002 5:27:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:RNossaman@cox.net">RNossaman@cox.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> .
> >         You know quite well there is some forcing of the bass and treble 
> > corners to get them down but when the edges do contact the rim the two 
> > surface areas are somewhere in the same relative plane and certainly more 
> 
> > so than purely flat surface. Besides we were discussing performance 
> benifits
> 
> I think we were discussing presumed performance benefits, and if any stress 
> 
> is undue stress and negatively affects performance, then what has been 
> gained with all the rim height contouring when you still have to press the 
> board down at the ends so much? I think it's much ado about effectively 
> nothing.

         I'm not defending their position just making the point that this was 
in their consiousnus. They obviously did have an idea about reducing bending 
strains but as to proving the performance benifits I think it was 
inconclusiv.

> 
> Sure I do. They were making these subjective evaluations in exclusively
> >>compression crowned boards, in controlled conditions, over a very short
> >>period of time. That's a whole lot of limiting assumptions when you're
> >>looking for performance improvements in something that's supposed to last
> >>as long as pianos are expected to. Here's an onion, a pound of hamburger, 
> a
> >>teaspoon of salt, and a can of chicken stock. Make bouillabaisse.
> >
> >               Huh?
> 
> What huh? How can you start with a specific set of ingredients you used 
> last time and get something fundamentally different this time? Do you 
> really suppose they ever considered anything but compression crowned boards 
> 
> in their experiments, or considered what thinning the panel would do to 
> those compression levels, and the long term affects? Judging from the 
> number of these pianos on showroom floors with dysfunctional boards, I 
> would say not.

     Well I'll give it back to then. What do you think they were after in 
that experiment? Market fluff? It's an honest question.

> 
> 
> >Dale writes
> >    At any rate the best judge of that kind of subject determination in
> >>my mind woud be the guys in the factory who were so familiar with the old
> >> > design compared to the new one that there opinion would carry some 
> >> real weight
> >>Ron writes
> >>I've always had a problem with this thinking. When would the guys in the
> >>factory working with the old ways ever get any experience with new ways 
> to
> >>refine their opinions? What you will most likely get here is "This is the
> >>way we've always done it, so this way is best." And isn't that what we
> >>hear, for the most part?
> >
> >
> >         Wow I totally disagree with you on this. To assumne that belly 
> > guys and final voicers can't tell the difference from piano to piano 
> > especially over time or have a valid opinion is a huge assumption or 
> > perhaps demeaning.
> 
> No, that's not what I said. The factory belly workers (voicing doesn't 
> belong here) normally get no chance whatsoever to experience anything new 
> or different than what they work with every day. Not being exposed to any 
> new ideas or methods, how can they possibly be even remotely qualified to 
> judge between them and what they have always done?

     Factory workers would get it if it was coming down the line.Well 
,Recently I heard John Patton had said that When he worked at Mason Hamlin 
that the pianos that recieved there bellys and were immediately strung 
without sitting around for a while always sounded better to him. Now as to 
why that may or may not be is not the my point but he did have an opinion. To 
say someone as sensitive as a voicer wouldn't notice a difference if 
something indeed had changed in the belly department is for me  not logical. 
This point amounts to a spittin contest Ron

> 
> Ron writes
> >>That's why I said "except in the bass if you don't float it". To many
> >>folks, thinning the panel edge means thinning the edge all around, which
> >>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 belly rail with exception of the high treble corner. Their sustain 
> > charachteristics are exceptional.
> 
> As I said, thinning won't do you any favors in the treble, at least not 
> with rib scaling parameters that most rebuilders are using.
> 
> 
> >Even a high treble can require some thinning depending on your starting 
> point.
> 
> What conditions would require panel thinning in the treble? Is this 
> something you do, or speculative?

      If I've got a panel that's overly thick for a given size a piano. i. e. 
a .375 or more sikta panel in an M or L ,I consider that to thick all over as 
well for a smaller piano. A .340 ish treble thickness would do fine. I've 
heard thinner that were good as well. What specs. are you shooting for?

>     Ok ,first I didn't mean any offense if I inadvertantly pushed a 
> > button but ,since I opened this can  Let me attempt clarify "radical 
> > redesign" and "extra costs". I aslo have respect for the work you guys 
> > are doing and moreover your willingness to share it on list. As I've told 
> 
> > you before I've changed some methods and experimented with others due to 
> > the thoughts and ideas shared.
> 
> No offense taken. I'm looking for continuity.
> 
>       I didn't ever say I was relying on the wisdom of the factory guys I 
> > just didn't discount that they had an opinion and knew a thing or two.
> 
>        Nor did I.

          
     > It can't . the results have to speak for themselves . Did I hear an 
> >agreement there?  Sustain , power and clarity are the proof.
> 
> You did, contingent on results rather than assumption.
> 
> Ron N
> 
    As I said , sometimes the performance benifits of some things are hard to 
quantify objectively.
  Regards
         Dale Erwin
         


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/33/e2/e1/78/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--