This is going a bit off track from my point. I'm not really talking about randomness or unpredictability in the way you mention, I'm really talking about controlled randomness as it were and it's more to do with overall tonal impressions, how the board seems to move and breath than with whether or not there will be success in crowning it, eliminating awkward scale problems, relocating bridges or other details that, I agree, need to be addressed frequently. I realize this is a totally qualitative attribute and nothing I am able to address in any kind of technical way. That makes it difficult to discuss, I realize, so I am putting it out at my own risk in the hopes that someone without a particular ideology will try and address just what it is I might be hearing and why. I've been party to several redesigns now with RC&S boards and the results have been good. I will continue to use that method because results are more predictable and because many of the irritating quirks can be remedied that are often not on traditional types of boards that I've heard. The sound is very controlled and focused. Sustain is improved. I'm not really arguing those points. In fact, let me go farther to say that there is a difference between RC&S boards with full cutoffs and compression boards without to my ear. The idea that an RC&S and compression crowned boards are simply two different ways to get to the same result is, in my experience, not really the case. They are different. That difference has everything to do with a more controlled tone, a tighter sound. To many people, maybe to most, that is a desirable thing. If there is a criticism, and to many this would not be a criticism, it is that the boards can feel overcontrolled, that they might lack a certain freedom especially at the forte end. Sometimes you want the board to growl a bit at the upper end of the dynamic range. This type of effect can sometimes be difficult to achieve on these boards. Now maybe that's the case with any new and successful board. But that's not been my listening experience. What I am trying to put my finger on is whether placing the bridge exactly in the middle of the panel with the addition of a full cutoff bar doesn't contribute to that phenomenon by virtue of how the resonances otherwise set up, as the Wogram article suggests, when the placement is not exactly on center. Judging from the diagram and the movement in the bass corner of that panel, I have to assume that the piano he measured did not have a cutoff bar of any type. So, if so, is there any merit to placing the bridge slightly off center by adding a smaller cutoff. I'm not sure the question can be answered, but it's an honest one without any particular agenda. David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Ron Nossaman Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 11:44 AM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: Soundboard Resonces and the Wogram Article > I don't think false beats are quite the same thing as an oscillating > resonance which seems to take place mostly (if I read the diagram correctly) > in the lower frequencies. No, they aren't, but what parts of chaos do we get to chose? > My assumption is that the pattern > produced will be more uniform and predictable. With the cutoff? Yes, that's the intent, and seems to be the result. >But sometimes > unpredictability and randomness can be a positive thing. So my question is > first, if that's the case, and second, if so, what are we trading for what > and is it something that's worth considering? > > David Love Why would you think I haven't considered it? Considering it is exactly what got me here. Personally, I don't like random surprises when I have so much time and expense invested in building a board and stringing it before I know what I've got. I had quite enough of that sort of thing through the years building more conventional boards by conventional methods guided by conventional wisdom and reproducing the problems as faithfully as I was able. I like this a lot better, and am quite thrilled and grateful to be able to trade so much of the voodoo guesswork of the conventional method for what I'm doing now, and I very much like the result. If I didn't, I would still be using the old methods and wisdom and getting the same annoying and disappointing results. Those of us doing this sort of work aren't noticeably endangering the world piano manufacturing process. There is still plenty of random out there for everyone who is interested, and doesn't like what the redesigners are doing, and I don't consider the possibility that if what I'm doing doesn't produce the sound people are used to hearing in pianos, I might want to reconsider my approach. As I said, I personally like the results, as do others who have heard them. I'm doing this quite intentionally and methodically, for what I consider to be far more valid reasons than maintaining the status quo. And I'm always learning something new, and think everyone should. I WANT people to hear something they're not used to hearing. They might just get ideas. Ron N _______________________________________________ Pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC