RC vs CC again

[Richard Brekne]

Thanks Ron for a fine and interesting posting

Overs Pianos wrote:
> Snip ..................
>  
> This is a very interesting topic which can be best understood by doing
> our own experiments and seeing just what happens. This list is a
> wonderful resource, but we must do our time at the bench if we really
> want to gain an understanding of this topic.

It sure is, and it becomes both more interesting and easier to do bench
time, when the discussion is carried on as it is in this exemplary post.
I really really appreciate reading views put thus forth.

As for the below... I am afraid you perhaps misunderstand my position in
all this. Perhaps understandably so given the friction that seems to
invade such topics. But let me try and be clear. My only upholding of
the CC tradition is based on what I observe out in the world. I find
that reality to be in stark constrast with the doomsday soothsayings I
read ofte times here. 

BUT... that in no way means I have any negative feelings at all about
alternative methods. Nor do I have any reason to dispute some of the
claims of structural strength superiority. Neither do I have any problem
with the kind of sound made available to us by manufacturers using other
types of boards then CC.

I believe that all of these can be used sucessfully (that is what I see
out there in anycase), and I would think that each would have certain
advantages of their own. 

So dont mistake me... I certainly do not condemn alternative
approaches.. Indeed.. the CC is just one of those alternatives, if you
get my meaning. My only beef is with what appears to me a tendancy of
intolerance amoung some. I mean hey... its not neccessary number one...
at least not here amoung freinds. And number two... its
counterproductive.

no no no... I say go for it Ron Overs... and more power to you.. knock
us all off our feets if you can !

Cheers
RicB
> 
> I strongly suspect that upholding the CC tradition, just because it
> happens to be the dominant process which has been adopted by a
> dominant manufacturer for the past century, is a sure way to limit the
> possibilities for further evolution of the piano. I'm not simply
> defending RC construction here mind you. I don't care what system of
> construction is used as long as the result is first class from both a
> tonal and reliability perspective. But for progress' sake, let's not
> condemn an alternative approach just because we are unfamiliar with
> it, or because we heard an instrument once that was claimed to have
> been built with such and such method, and in our opinion the piano was
> inferior to something we have in our 'mind's ear'. For example,
> several commercial makers have given laminated panels a nasty
> reputation, but after building instruments with them I am becoming
> more convinced that they have great potential if handled with care -
> but that applies equally to many things.
> 
> Ron O.
> 
> --
> 
> OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
>    Grand Piano Manufacturers
> _______________________
> 
> Web http://overspianos.com.au
> mailto:info@overspianos.com.au
> _______________________

-- 
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