SORRY! ( Was meant to be private. )

[Ron Nossaman]

> P.S. I DO accept the general superiority of 
> rib-crowned boards, but NO ONE has yet explained to me
> why these four magnificent uprights I have 
> ( 2 Knabes, 1 Ivers and Pond, 1 Packard ) with wide,
> fat ribs, all allegedly "compression crowned" and, by
> the general consensus here therefore "inferior", are
> THE BEST OLD PIANOS I HAVE EVER HEARD, BEAUTIFULLY
> PRESERVED, WARM, RICH, LOUD, FULL AND RESONANT!
>       Were it just one, I could consider it an
> anomaly. But since ANY of these four CLOBBERS the
> hundreds of other pianos I have heard, tonally, I am
> not yet satisfied with the condemnation their
> construction style has reaped here.
>      I'm no expert, but we're missing something, I'm
> sure.


Well, YOU'RE sure missing something if this is all you got out 
of all the list discussion on soundboards.

For instance - of all those hundreds of clobbered pianos 
you've heard that didn't sound nearly as good as your four 
exceptional uprights, how many of them had compression crowned 
boards? Of those that did, why didn't they sound as good as 
these exceptional uprights? Why don't ALL Knabes, Ivers & 
Ponds, and Packards sound this wonderful?

When you can explain that to US rationally, perhaps you'll 
have some idea why these four pianos don't sound that way. And 
why only four uprights? Shouldn't there be thousands upon 
thousands of them that sound that good?

This is rhetorical, incidentally, rather than the beginning of 
a discussion.

Ron N