>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. Which is possibly why you haven't read here from any proponent of rib crowning that rib crowning produces better sound than compression crowning. I have read from those seeing no need for anything different from current production lines and methods (not to include you in this category) say they won't be convinced that redesigning pianos is worthwhile unless it can produce a sound that is significantly and dramatically better than anything being produced by the old methods and plans, either in manufacturing facilities, or rebuilders' shops. Somehow, all the substandard and failed compression crowned boards out there are granted bulk pardons in light of the relatively few truly wonderful sounding ones they hold up as examples. Rib crowned and supported boards don't seem to be allowed any margin at all. They must each and every one, sound at least as good as the best sounding compression crowned board the assessor has ever heard, before they will be deemed worthy of consideration. This all comes entirely from the people not building rib crowned and supported boards. The builders of RC&S boards on this list have never claimed superiority of tone over CC boards at all, that I'm aware of, yet that remains the criteria for determining their worth. A similar potential for greatness, with a higher average potential for good-to-acceptable doesn't seem to be acceptable criteria for judgement. The ear, I read and hear repeatedly, is the final arbiter. Yes, of course it is, but it is the basic accepted premise residing between those ears that sets the level against which the ear judges that has to be the same for both categories, and until the listener can make a global comparison of all the CC boards they have heard (not just the very best) against all the RC&S boards they have heard (which is very likely none for a lot of techs), they don't have a basis for comparison. You may one day hear a RC&S board that you consider greater than the greatest CC board you ever heard, or you may not. It depends entirely on how you subjectively judge each of them, whether they are judged by level and equal criteria, and how many RC&S boards you eventually hear, if any. > 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. I disagree. Average pianists that don't qualify as worthy by this standard also complain when their CC boards die early and take their acceptable tone production with them. An RC&S board producing adequate tone quality, whether it sounds better than the CC board or not, but doesn't die prematurely, will serve the less worthy just as well as it would the performance level pianist. And there are far more of them. > 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. And why wouldn't this also be the case with RC&S boards unless you presuppose that they can't sound as good as the CC board and the pianist couldn't possibly find one among the many that they liked? Again, I have repeatedly read opinions on this list that RC&S boards will all sound exactly alike. Indeed, I've read the description "cookie cutter" as an illustration. Again, this only comes from folks who don't build them. The builders of RC&S boards have said that the construction technique raises the low end. Instead of producing CC boards that could be anywhere in the 60% to 100% range of subjective wonderfullness, you can dependably produce boards in the 80% to 100% range. These numbers are for illustration of concept, not an absolute provable beyond any doubt claim to anything. >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. Why would anyone have to assure them of anything? They would bring their subjective hearing criteria to the RC&S board just like they do to the CC boards. The piano would grade A+ or not on it's perceived acoustic wonderfulness, regardless of the crowning method. Do you imagine that a single one of these high strata pianists has even the remotest clue or care for how their soundboard is crowned? I don't. >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. Which they don't necessarily have to be, but that's another subject. > And I haven't yet become personally convinced that a RC soundboard can > produce this. Based on how many samples? I know there are many manufacturers making hybrid rib/compression crowned soundboards, but can you name any using rib crowned and SUPPORTED boards? Also, when you start comparing other manufacturers, you get into different hammers, string scales, rim materials, action designs, and widely different intents as to the sound they intend to produce for the manufacturing costs and time incurred. > 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. I expect that would depend on whether you played CC boards in the 100% potential, or in the 60% potential. We all grade on the curve, from what we experience, and can't grade with finality what we haven't experienced. >For A- pianos or below, the evidence presented here has convinced me that >RC should be the method of choice. I agree. No contest. > 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 don't, and I do, without discounting the potential for the occasional great. >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. It wouldn't work that way. an RC&S board would have a different design. It would have a scale and bridge placement designed for the occasion, different rib set and cutoff bars, bracing, and different hammers than the original. It's not just a matter of crowning the ribs. Given a minimum of ten pianos to refine a design on (given the thousands the manufacturer went through perfecting their product, that's wildly generous), in an independent shop that is versed in RC&S board and general piano design (Not the original manufacturer), and a budget necessary to do the work, including the probable plate redesign and production, sure. Let's try it. Notify Del to clear out space, and I'll see if he'll let me come help. I can be there by Wednesday. >Bring in some good pianists and let them try all the pianos and pick out >the 5 or 10 that they liked best. All of what pianos? After the initial ten RC&S pianos for calibration, ten consecutive pianos from each should tell us what we need to know. >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. No doubt. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC