Really enjoyed reading this posting Dale. Same goes for Phil. I agree with your observations, finding they echo my own. Tho I am not experienced in replacing soundboards, I am certainly capable, as are most of us who have read through so much informative opinion and experience made available on this list over the years, of listening to instruments and comparing their sound with each other, and with the various postulations put forward by technicians both here, and elsewhere. The market does indeed play a fickle role, but to attribute the success of Steinway through the years purely to that quality is something I am not prepared to do. First and foremost because of what that says about human kind. Secondly because it just and simply is far to fantastic (direction fantasy). Add to that my own experience and despite the very convincing argumentation from the proponents of the RC method, I find too large a discrepancy between theory and empiri at its most simple to accept the proposition that 1:) CC panels are so inferior in their basic design that they should be abandoned and 2: That CC panels will necessarily succumb to compression damages that among other things leads to the inevitable demise of their upper treble range. None of this should be misconstrued to mean that I have any criticism of RC boards. In the end, it is the rebuilder who must take concern to which method is too be employed. My view may someday change, views have a habit of doing that :),,,, but as per today, seems to me both methods can be very successfully executed resulting in delightfull, enduring, and enriching sound. Cheers, and thanks for a refreshing perspective. RicB > Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote: > > Phil > I appreciate your comments and & wished to share a few of my > own. I know I'm taking usual risks by offering somewhat transparent > observations of my work and others. If I'm unclear or (often the case) > let me know. > Though I've always 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 is 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 subtle disappointment were > possibly due also to inadequate amounts of bearing which John Hartman > was responsible for kindly enlightening me. Since then I feel > the results have been remarkably improved, IMHO. > When I first started making my own boards about 8 years ago I was > crowning my ribs less and drying more. Probably about 5% emc. As time > went on I started drying less (bout 6%emc) 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. > It may be of interest, it is to me, that some models of S&S's and > inherent designs charachteristics lend 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 Model A- 2 & 3's. Where the > string load and mass of the board work well together and low amounts > of crown/ bearing seem to work as well higher amounts of crown/bearing > whether they be Rc or CC. The O on the other hand, and this is > strictly my subjective opinion, does better with a flatter crown and > more moderate bearing loads. L's are more easly given board > transplantss as are wide tail cousins the A's. Perhaps this is why the > O was discontinued > 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 original boards. I've rebuilt the > D, action and strings. It has no visible compression damage, has a lot > of crown and bearing. It sounds as good any/ many D I've heard. Jeremy > Denk, a young pianist from New York, played Taichoskys piano concerto > no. 1 in B flat minor. > Jeremy is young pianist with amazing skills. 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 sucked and > after voicing he agreed they'd improved to his liking. He also liked > the tone of bass& tenor up to the break. He then played thru the > killer regions saying he wished it could sound more like the tenor > which he liked very much. He confessed he'd take the piano home any > day. > By the way this piano has really 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 plus tone color when shifted. > 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 the 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. > 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 ribbing & using a apropriately curved > deck, more of the A plus pianos Phil referrs to would possibly be seen > without so much damage. That is providing diligent climate control is > used. Thats true of both CC &RC boards > Also many1960 and 70s S&S's used sitka boards with sugar pine ribs > and were made by guys seemingly paying attention to the important > stuff. These pianos sound as good as any vintage ax I've seen > especially in the sustain dept. > Another observation is that of the S&S's , Masons, Yamahas & > others that had the best 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 not always sounding inferior. A case of high emc's at > ribbing. I don't know 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 observable when looking carefully across > the panel. > Regards--Dale > > > -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC