>What can I say, Ron. That's life. People like Wayne Stuart and Ron Overs >have to live with the fact that every one of their pianos has to be better >than the best Steinway that the pianist has ever heard, or thinks he has >heard, or they will condemned out of hand. It's not fair, but it's human >nature. It certainly seems to be. >I'm not trying to categorize non-professional pianists as unworthy. But I >think there may be a distinction between a performance piano and a home >piano, just like there's a distinction between a Ferrari and a Toyota. To >get the Ferrari performance, you do a lot of maintenance, you put up with >a lot of quirkiness, give up some comfort, etc. Professional drivers put >up with that. The guy commuting to work every day does not. If it >happens to be true that a high performance piano achieves its sound by >putting itself on a path to self destruction, then a professional pianist >would probably be willing to accept this, a home pianist probably >not. So, perhaps this person should have bought an A- piano rather than >an A+ piano. Reasonable enough. >>>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. > >I don't think they care either. I would only have to assure them if the >sound wasn't as good, but they were getting a piano that would be long >lived at its inferior performance level. If the sound wasn't as good, they wouldn't choose it in the first place, would they? Or would they, like they do in Steinway Hall, choose what they consider to be the best of what is offered, rather than holding out for the best piano they ever heard or ever will hear - which is statistically unlikely in any sampling of pianos of any manufacturer at any time? Then, there's the problem that different people will chose different pianos as their ideal piano of the moment, so it ultimately comes down to personal taste and prejudice. By this, I don't mean prejudice for or against building methods they are largely or totally unaware of, but the picture that has formulated and evolved in their minds of that constitutes the ideal sound. This is primarily why no one has said that good RC&S boards sound better than good CC boards. It's non-quantifiable. No one can agree on what constitutes good sound, though the worse the sound, the broader the agreement on the assessment. Stuart's piano is a good example. Some say it's the most wonderful thing by far that they have ever heard in their lives, and others think it honks. >>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. > >Why not? I thought compression crowning was the potential problem. If >there's a piano that I like the sound of, even if you think it's >inadequately designed, why wouldn't it sound just as good by substituting >a rib crowned board? > >Phil Ford Which problem? Too many things are still being lumped together here as the same concern. I read this as, if compression crowning produces potential structural problems (this being the problem associated with them), why won't a substituted rib crowned board sound just as good? Are you talking about sound, or structure? What I mean is that the old CC board designs evolved along with the rest of the piano. Aspects of each have been adapted to aspects of the other. Dropping a state of the art Steinway style diaphragmmed compression crowned board into a Yamaha without changing anything else won't tell you much about which crowning system produces the best sound, because they're considerably different beasts. Sure, crowning ribs identical to the original and doing everything else the same can produce a nice sounding piano, even a great sounding one. Quite possibly the best sounding piano you've ever heard. From John Hartman's description, I assume that's exactly what he's doing. But it isn't designed to be a RC&S board, and is still primarily panel supported, so it doesn't answer your question of whether a great sounding RC&S board can be made. There are currently two manufacturers contributing to this list who are in the process of beginning production of pianos with as close to pure RC&S soundboards as you'll find anywhere. I am very much looking forward to the results of both their efforts. The first couple of hundred production pianos should give us all ample statistical samplings to form an opinion - all of which will undoubtedly differ. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC