More CC vs RC questions was RE: Killer Octave & Pitch Raise

[Ron Nossaman]

>I've always thought of the "uniquely different" line as a euphemism for
>"we can't really control with great reliability what will happen".

Exactly. So what are we comparing the average generic RC&S board to - the 
very best of the CC boards? That's why I suggested we look at it as how can 
a CC board be built to sound exactly like an RC&S board. We ought to have a 
level playing field for comparison.


>Since we are assuming that the RC&S boards are able to reduce the range
>of variability (I'll assume no system is entirely perfect), to what
>degree do you think there are differences within the RC&S boards due to
>basic differences in the, for example, piece of spruce that ends up
>being the panel itself, or other things that I can't think of at the
>moment.
>
>David Love

My experience indicates that the method does indeed reduce the range of 
variability, though it is certainly not perfect. I'm not all that convinced 
that the choice of individual pieces of spruce in the panel is critical in 
an RC&S board. Laminated ribs tend to average stiffness differences between 
individual pieces of stock, and a greater number of smaller ribs gives 
better stiffness control throughout the panel. Stiffness along the grain 
won't differ a whole lot, and that is most important in the treble. 
Stiffness across the grain is of no real importance in any crowning system, 
though compression resistance is in panel supported systems. Folks building 
CC boards want high grain per inch counts for the density and compression 
resistance the method requires. I ask for something in the 8-10 grain per 
inch range for my panels. I want them light, and resilient enough to take 
some seasonal compression without cracking when they dry out, which is a 
mechanical consideration rather than a tonal one. The tonal considerations, 
I try to attend to with everything but the panel.

Ron N