Well, Clay, things on this list might not always go as you wish. My advice is to delete posts before or after you've read them. You can always visit the archives when or if you want to catch up. Good luck with whatever your question was! Barbara (one of the many women on this list) Richmond, RPT near Peoria, Illinois ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clayton Bean's Piano Biz" <pianobiz at verizon.net> To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Monday, February 8, 2010 3:57:49 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [pianotech] enough! Gentlemen: Haven't we had enough discussion, rambling, and sniping re Yamaha hammers, etc? Please, you're clogging up my e-mail box . I thought this email avenue was for seeking answers to problems. Am I misinformed? Joe Garrett, Ron and Tom were kind to suggest an answers to my problem and I was very thankful - and I will respond to them after my next appt's result. Thank you for your kindness gentlemen (Anna was also helpful and the only woman on here so far) Clay ----- Original Message ----- From: PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [pianotech] Hammer strike line. Was-----Yamaha Hammer Suggestion Actually, Ron, this deserves a rational response; I might caution you that your invective is unwarranted. I will say again, since you seemed to miss my point altogether, that the differences between factory board and bellies, particularly S&S CC boards and the more recent RC&S boards may account for the differences in strike line that we are seeing. Two people, as you say, have indicated that there are apparently demonstrable differences. I would guess that there are probably more. This is still not a proof of anything as much as it is a surprisingly happy claim which should lead us to ask why. Is it in the belly construction alone? You will say so. I might agree, based on my own experience with 100's of new boards, all CC. No, Ron, I've never built an RC&S board. How does this make me disinterested in learning something "outside my marketable experience" whatever that means? And to what semantic bullshit are you referring? You have a knee-jerk reaction going on here somehow, perhaps to me, perhaps to something else. You've gone beyond civil conversation here. I invite you to re-read what I've said so far and try again. I spoke to factory belly/forefinishing on (assumed) CC boards. I'm not threatened by anything at all; but you are certainly defensive of something. I'm as stupid as the rest of us. If I've misunderstood anything you've said, consider me a willing, if not very apt pupil. However, if you take my questions as intentional misdirection, don't bother to answer them in the future. Regards, Paul In a message dated 2/7/2010 8:36:36 P.M. Central Standard Time, rnossaman at cox.net writes: PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com wrote: > All worthwhile considerations. Yet it is striking, no pun intended, as > has been pointed out, that RC&S boards _seem_ to need less hammer > movement. Why is this so threatening to you? Two people who design and build these systems in the real world have indicated that it is either less necessary, or altogether unnecessary to deviate from a straight strike line for tonal purposes in a RC&S board. If you, not having built boards like this at all, so lacking any experience with same, know better than those of us who have, why don't you inform us as to why we don't know what we're talking about instead of weaseling around this semantic bullshit? If you're not interested in learning anything outside your marketable experience, that's your call, but someone else might be. This information has been offered in all honesty as real and verified as valid by building the damned things and trying it. If you have anything real and pertinent to contribute besides speculation and misdirection, please do. Ron N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100208/8a91c0dd/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC