Ron Nossaman wrote: > > >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. Where have you read this ? I havent seen any such argumentation used on this list since I've been on here. Rather... it is that the statement in the your next paragraph does not reflect the real situation and grossly overstates the negative in CC boards so as to be able to justify a position of rejecting them. > 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. Not true again... I have said several times now, as have all others who defend CC boards.. that RC boards are cool. We dont have any problem with a rebuilder choosing to use an RC board. Why should we ? Rather...it the select few who insist in condemning the CC board that lies at the root of the conflict. We say... both board types are fine, you say no, only the RC board should be used. > This all comes entirely from the > people not building rib crowned and supported boards. Wrong again.. the real position is as I've stated above, that both can be used plenty successfully, and there is no real reason to condemn one or the other. That position is echoed in both Phils and Dales posts,, tho perhaps not as strongly underlined. > 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. I fail to see where this comes from. Who here has demanded that RC boards demonstrate such superiority ? Who has accused RC enthusiasts of mistakenly claiming such superiority? > 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. I dissagree entirely. People hear what they hear and like what they like based on entirely different criteria. They couldnt give a hoot about all these technical matters. We see the same in virtually every aspect of our work. Just try and quantify the grand action in terms of some "best solution". People make that global comparsion, and have been making it for 150 years or so.... on perhaps a more intuitive level they you would perfer... but just so.. and their judgement is in, and has been for a long long time. It is exactly that fact that makes condemnation of the CC board as a viable way of crowning impossible to accept. It boils down to an "to each his own" in my book. I cant see any justification for the utter rejection of CC boards as being demonstrated, not technically, and not by observing pianos in service. I can neither see that any real discussion about any real sound characteristics differences between the two boards is likely to be carried on, as long as the degree of prejudice for or agains one or the other remains what it is today. -- 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