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

[Ron Nossaman]

>I wouldn't say that I'm unhappy with an RC&S board.  The purpose of this 
>thread (forget the meanderings) was to identify tonal differences if 
>any.   I've rarely heard an upper end (capo sections) in terms of clarity, 
>sustain and sparkle achieved on a CC board that I have heard on an RC&S 
>board and maybe never on a NY Steinway.  But whether that's due to the 
>crowning method or the modifications such as cut-offs, treble fish, or the 
>style of ribbing (probably both) I can't say.

Some of all of the above, I'd say, each to a not precisely predictable degree.


>I don't see any real difference in the bass that can't be explained by 
>scaling choices.

Bass improvements are considerably more obvious in smaller pianos. Big 
pianos are usually pretty bass heavy already. I do find that rescaling with 
smaller bass core diameters makes it harder to get the dampers to work.


>In the tenor section, again, it's hard to separate it out.  I'm working 
>with cut-off bars whereas most CC's that I know are not.  That does make a 
>difference in terms of clarity and focus of tone.

Mid tenor sections aren't typically problematic anyway. The low tenor, yes, 
and the treble.


>The jury is still out on differences.  I don't see any reason not to build 
>a RC&S board and there are many reasons to build one.  But I am still 
>learning to work with them to pull out what I want and, to be honest, they 
>are also changing my view of the tonal possibilities on a piano.  As 
>always, there is reluctance, at first, to accept a changing view and I am 
>no different that way.  As I go through this process of reassessment, 
>though, I have lots of questions that are beyond my knowledge bass.  The 
>builders of these pianos have been, I think, very good about sharing what 
>they know and I appreciate it.  There are still unanswered questions, but 
>that's why we keep going, right?
>
>David Love

Right.

Ron N