The question is whether or not there is some common acoustic properties and tendancies that CC boards have in general that RC and RC&S boards do not. Of course no two boards are acoustically identical, and I dare say that goes for any type of construction. And the question is not whether both methods sound good or not, one has to assume a competant builder can achieve <<good>> results. The question is whether any general acoustical difference is what the builder is after or not. This (the below) reasoning leads in the direction of trying to have it both ways. Either there is a difference or there is not. Whatever differences there are can not be simply discounted by throwing in words like "meaningfull" or "significant" without any further qualification. And as to whether or not one can hear the difference... well I can just only ask who else has got that "Steinway sound" besides Steinway ? When someone makes a RC&S board and puts it into a Steinway D rim, and puts the darned thing on the stage of Carnegie Hall and fools everyone with its <<authentic Steinway sound>> then one can begin to make such claims. Until then... the evidence really rather does point in the opposite direction. Cheers RicB Ron Nossaman writes: What two CC boards coming out of the Steinway NY factory are acoustically equivalent? Much mileage is given to the concept of the uniquely individualistic nature of each piano produced by these methods. Why do you suppose that is? Why don't we turn this around and see if anyone can produce CC boards that are acoustically equivalent to a good RC&S board? Whatever that may be. Again, if there is a meaningful acoustic difference between these two construction methods, one should be able to tell by listening, which method was used. If they both sound good, they both sound good. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC