I really appreciate this truly helpful post, Dale. Thanks! G --- Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote: > > Wow > I went to convention & this thread is still > active after a week. > Always a good sign IMO. Gordon I've been > following some of this & I think I > understand where your'e coming from. > Do I hear someone saying "oh crap here he goes > again"...... Oh well > Gordon, to reiterate what some have said....... > many forms of boards > work, but repeatable, duplicate results is the name > of the game, as far as is > possible in the realm of the materials we work > with. We weren't around to see a > numbers of units come off a production line & judge > these under our tonal > microscopes. How unfortunate. Never the less, I, > as well as others are amazed > by the intersting sdbd designs seen in the field > but I probably wouldn't > build one that way today well ....unless you want > to be my patron. > I've built dozens of boards in different > iterations & thru that have > discovered a sound I love which seems to be > repeatable. No, I'll admit, early on > not all my boards have met my expectations but as I > have applied ideas > gleaned from others, taken risks etc. the results > have improved repeatably & > dramtically. > This type of empirical experience has NO > substitute & the only way I > or anyone can prove results is to put yourself in > front of instruments that > come from here & elsewhere, put your fingers & ears > on it & do your own test > & then decide for yourself if modern RC designs > provide a musically > excellent outcome. > Many folks this past weekend in Los Angeles had > that opportunity to do > just that. June 21st You can do the same in > Rochester. This has rarely > happened & I've been waiting along time for it to > happen again. Sign up....go > > I'll speak for all others guys taking restored > instruments to > Rochester....... > It's a lot of work to get a piano > prepped,shined & primed for such an > event & if all one has to do is get there I think > it will be a very > fascinating convention for those in attendance > > My humble designs, which I call VRS "Variable > Radius Soundboard" Has > produced very consistent results. It's not even my > idea ..so what, it works. > > Be that as it may I rebuilt a Ivers & Pond 6ft > grand that was from the > 20's. It had big wide flatish ribs & a .400 thick > panel. Wow .. > Strung up it showed no signs of residual crown > as tested with a string > across the boards bottom. Un strung the crown > jumped up at least 10 mm. The > sustain was incredible in this piano. Analyzing the > string scale showed a > scale very near the breaking strength in the > middle portions of plain wire but > wow did it sound good. The tighter a wire the > better it seems to sound. Many > things , as usual ,contribute to the sound being > achieved & this was no > exception. > However my Sister had /has a large ornate rebuilt > Ivers & Pond upright > turn o century style also with the wide flat ribs > design. The bass is > astounding the mid tenor really good but from > approx. note 55 on up it suffers big > time from low impedance creating a weak treble > So..... she bought a AA > Mason > That said ,Would I build this Ivers grand design? > No.... did it work. Yes > ,but how bout the countless others that came out > with it & the ones you > mentioned we'll never know. > Postulate away > Dale Erwin > > Dear Mr. 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. ) > 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. ) > 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" > ). > If the rings are parallel, their naturally > compact cellular structure will be largely in a > state > of tension due to soundboard crown, which I see as > conducive to elasticity in the rib, and resistance > to > "compression set". ( Downbearing and vibration will > get them closer to their pre-crowned state of > density, > but not beyond it. ) > If, on the other hand, the rings are vertical, > particularly if rib-crowning is cut into them, many > more cells will be in compression, which may lead > to > excessive stiffness and and earlier breakdown of > the > system. ( Caused by compression set within the rib > itself ). > What I am getting at is this: There is no question > in my mind that whoever built these boards knew > what > they were doing. All are from top manufacturers, > and > all have stood up over time, in a horrid climate, > producing superlative tone. I am merely suggesting > that they intentionally aimed for "the best of all > possible worlds": wide, flat ribs of quartersawn > spruce with the annular rings parallel to the board > surface, for elasticity and longevity.... with some > rib-crowning, as well. > 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 hegemony 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. > 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. > > Peace, > Gordon > > > .--- Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > I'd love to, if I ever get the time. > > > > If you have an hour to dedicate to your > education, > > you've got > > the time. If not, you'll never know anyway. > > > > > > >I'm guessin' that > > > the intent of this rib design is to maximize > > support, > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC