RC vs CC again (was Re: compression ridges)

Phillip Ford fordpiano@earthlink.net
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 12:04:54 -0700


>>
>>I think Mark Potter's summary covered the argument pretty well and is
>>consistent with what advocates of rib crowning have been saying....
>>When a concert pianists goes through 25
>>pianos in order to pick one what is it that they are listening for?  The
>>marked differences in the instruments may well be a function of
>>preparation, touchweight dynamics etc..  But you can be sure that the tone
>>of each is also a function of how effectively the soundboard is working.
>>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.

>>   The only issue to consider, then, would be how consistently can
>>one method produce good results over the other, and what is the likelihood
>>that one system will function to a higher level over time than the other.
>>The science strongly suggests that the rib crowned board has advantages in
>>those two areas....
>>
>>David Love

These are the reasons to choose rib crowned (RC) boards over 
compression crowned (CC) boards, all things being equal.  And there's 
the rub, and why I believe that we have these endless discussions on 
this subject.  Each individual builder or rebuilder, 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 
convince me personally that one system is better than another, 
sonically speaking.  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 substitute), not my brain.

I think we don't distinguish in these discussions 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 fine amateur 
pianists.  These players are highly discerning and highly opinionated 
about the sounds that they hear.  And they're looking for something 
beyond the average piano sound, something which is difficult, if not 
impossible to describe.  They would probably say something like, I 
can't put into words what I'm looking for, but I know it when I hear 
it.  As David mentioned, artists will search through 25 pianos 
(they'd probably be willing to search through many more) to get the 
one that they want.  They're not terribly interested in consistency. 
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 
if they can find the one that is.  And they probably wouldn't think 
that there was something wrong with the other 24, just that those 
pianos were more suited to someone else.  They probably would be 
interested in longevity, but only if you could assure them that they 
wouldn't have to make any sonic sacrifices to get it.  These pianos 
represent a tiny percentage of the piano population, maybe 1 % or 
less.  What I might call an A+ piano.

The remaining 99% of the piano world falls into the A- and below 
category, where these distinctions don't matter.  At the lowest 
levels, these pianos are abysmal.  At the highest 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 and 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 don'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 produce 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 believer 
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 played 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 not great. 
So, as far as I know, my favorite pianos, the ones that live in 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 
pianos 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 method of choice.  If you're a factory that is 
building low to upper mid 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 more 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 good (those percentages are random 
for talking purposes, feel free to substitute your own numbers). 
Every piano needs to turn out well.  Even if you believed that CC 
offered a bit more sonic potential, you might prefer to opt for very 
good 100% of the time, rather than great 10 % of the 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 the 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 
building artist quality pianos, and accept whatever downside goes 
with that choice.  If the favorite pianos were a mixture, but all the 
number one pianos were CC, you might conclude that CC has the 
potential to be slightly better, but perhaps not markedly so, so do 
we as a factory want to live with its downside?  If the favorites 
were a random mixture, then I think you would conclude there's no 
sonic advantage of one system 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 conclusion is even more obvious.

Until something like this happens, or until each individual somehow 
comes across a RC soundboard piano that converts him, these 
discussions will continue without any conclusions.

Phil Ford

PS  All of my comments here would apply equally well 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.

-- 
Phillip Ford
Piano Service and Restoration
1777 Yosemite Ave - 130
San Francisco, CA  94124

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC