Dear Mr. Nossaman.....( Was, "Why wide, flat ribs.....? )

[Ron Nossaman]

>      I am simply trying to ascertain why these 4
> boards, which should be "crap" by the general
> "consensus" on this list are, instead, the best
> preserved ( tonally ) of any I've heard on pianos this
> old. ( And I've heard hundreds. ) 

Mark this spot. We'll be referring back to it.


>     My 3 previous inquiries reaped deafening silence.
> It was only after I cited a revered authority that
> someone ( you ) deemed it necessary to reveal that, in
> fact, wide, shallow ribs CAN have rib-crowning. Until
> then this feature was unanimously declared here as
> indicative of "Strictly CC"  boards. 
>    ( Thank you very much. )

This is very old news. It has been stated and acknowledged 
over and over again that pianos with wide shallow ribs can be 
rib crowned. They are not, however, rib supported. They are 
still primarily panel supported, which has also been stated 
and acknowledged over and over again. Take the measurements, 
do the math, and see for yourself why this is so.


>     NOW, I am postulating that grain orientation was
> an integral, intentional feature of this design. I am
> incredulous regarding your assertion that a
> quarter-sawn piece of wood will have the same
> characteristics of elasticity and resistance to
> compression set, whether the rings run parallel to the
> board ( "Pancaked" ) or perpendicular ( "Vertical" ).

Show me a reference of any authoritative source that says 
that, please. I've spent lots of hours looking for just that 
information through reference material and Internet searches, 
with nothing at all to indicate that it's true. I've done 
deflection tests on square stock with the annular rings both 
vertical and horizontal, with no appreciable difference. If 
you have evidence to the contrary that isn't just more off the 
top speculative armchair bullshit, I'd really like to know the 
source. I'm quite willing to be educated, but the information 
had better connect with this universe in some way.


>     What I am getting at is this: There is no question
> in my mind that whoever built these boards  knew what
> they were doing. 

Please refer to the marked spot above. If someone who knew 
what they were doing built these boards, then who that didn't 
know what they were doing built all the other lousy sounding 
boards for these manufacturers? I've asked you this already, 
but it wasn't apparently convenient to your crusade, and you 
ignored it, so I'll try again. If some secret knowledge that 
supersedes todays engineering knowhow went into the building 
of these four boards, why don't all the other pianos from 
these manufacturers sound as good? Did they run out of magic, 
or are these boards just survivors by statistical aberration?


>All are from top manufacturers, and
> all have stood up over time, in a horrid climate,
> producing superlative tone. 

By "horrid climate", I assume you mean RH% fluctuations 
between 80% and what, 90%? It's already been pointed out to 
you that your climate isn't nearly as hard on pianos as one in 
many other areas that experiences real and drastic RH% swings 
from season to season and, indeed, from week to week. This, 
also, apparently didn't fit your agenda.


>      There is nothing wrong with postulating here.
> Sure, I'll take a good, close look at these things
> when I have the time. But part of the List's utility
> is that it provides an opportunity for those who have
> already done the looking to speak up, and there,
> unfortunately, are certain persons here who have
> established a hegenomy of opinion which intimidates,
> and thereby precludes others from venturing forth, for
> fear of having their "Heads bit off", as you did to me
> in your last.

Your head was that way when I found it, and I don't consider 
it unreasonable to expect someone to pay attention and at 
least attempt to make sense when they take the pulpit.


>      All mysteries that have faced mankind,
> individually and collectively, have first been
> assigned  theoretical answers which empirical
> investigations confirm or debunk. 
>    I have presented an anomaly to the "List"
> "consensus":  Four, shallow, wide ribbed pianos which
> all sound like thunder after 100 years in a truly
> lousy climate. I am merely seeking an explanation, and
> appreciate what positive information you have
> presented. I must confess, though, that I perceive
> some irritation based more on the fact that I have
> thrown a "monkey wrench" into the "accepted theory",
> rather than that I have merely not "learned enough"
> from what has been discussed before.

Yes, it's an anomaly. That means you won't get a definitive 
answer in detail from anyone on the list, as to exactly why 
these pianos beat the odds and sound so good to you.
Ron N