Phil,
Thanks for taking the time to produce such a well-written, insightful post.
Some comments are interposed.
Phillip Ford wrote:
>
> >>
>
> 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
>
Personally, although the RC proponents seem, superficially at least, to make a
good case for the mechanical superiority of boards produced by this method, this
is still an open question for me, even though I am inclined to think that the RC
board will show less trauma, for what it is worth, over time. Nor, in my
opinion, is the "science" as well established as some seem to believe.
Particularly so, as to what has been expressed here and in the Journal.
> 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 agree wholeheartedly as to how the sound itself shoud be judged. This is not
simply a matter of ringtime, by any means as appears to be advocated by some.
> 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.
>
I would be most happy to find one that has but neither have I. If the Walter
piano designed by Fandrich had one, then it was, at least on the way to this kind
of sound, something I am pleased to report. However, it was still lacking to
some degree as I said in the post.
>
> 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.
>
I am pleased to see such discussion and respect, simply for the fact that they
admire pianos, as most of us do, all contributors to such as subject even though
I may disagree. Where I object, as I have said before, is in the extent of
absolute claims for the superiority of some whose results are seldom submitted to
the norms of public view, particularly, as this method is them claimed
functionally superseded all others by rendering them completely "obsolete, etc."
Anyway, thanks again for an insightful commentary.
Regards, Robin Hufford
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC