RC vs CC again

[David Love]

Phil:

I am curious how the RC boards you heard were set up with respect to
hammers.  I do agree with Robin H. that the hammer style and even the shank
is and can be critical to the type of tone and color that will be produced.
I have had experiences with changing original shanks to Renner (keeping
original hammers) on an older Steinway and noticing a difference in
tone--so did the customer, by the way.  With the current trend toward
putting hard hammers such as Abel or Renner on rebuilt NY Steinways, how
much do you think the hammer may have contributed to the fact that you were
not wowed by these instruments.  

David Love
davidlovepianos@earthlink.net


> [Original Message]
> From: Phillip Ford <fordpiano@earthlink.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: 9/28/2003 11:29:29 PM
> Subject: Re: RC vs CC again
>
> >>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.
>
> Perhaps.  I would be satisfied with producing a sound just as good.
>
> >  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.
>
> 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.
>
> >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.
>
> That criteria is acceptable to me.  My point was that I'm not 
> convinced as yet of the similar potential for greatness.
>
> >The ear, I read and hear repeatedly, is the final arbiter. ...
> >>  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.
>
> 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.
>
> >
> >
> >>   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.
>
> I have some trouble with this reasoning Ron.  On the one hand you 
> tell me that RC boards can consistently produce 80 to 100 %.  On the 
> other hand you take me to task for expecting all RC boards to sound 
> as good as the best CC boards I have heard.  My definition of 100% is 
> the best piano that I've ever heard.  So, if RC board pianos can 
> consistently produce in the 80 to 100% range, then even in a small 
> number of samples of RC board pianos, I should have heard a piano 
> that's as good as the best piano that I've ever heard.  That hasn't 
> happened.  But, perhaps I haven't heard a true RC&S board according 
> to the description that you give later.
>
> >
> >
> >>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.
>
> >
> >
> >>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 think I said a handful.  This based on rebuilt pianos that I have 
> heard where I was told the boards were rib crowned.  Perhaps these 
> wouldn't fit your definition of RC&S.
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, I realize there are many variables.  Which is why this isn't 
> very clear cut.  Which is one of the reasons for all this discussion.
>
> >
> >
> >>  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...
> >>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.
>
> 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
>
> >  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
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives