humidity/CAUT

Mark Cramer cramer@BrandonU.CA
Tue Apr 25 10:35 MDT 2000


With regard to Rob's remarks (if in fact this is where he was going), I
wonder, if the guidelines wouldn't function better using pitch deviation
rather than humidity fluctuation to determine the effects of climate on
workload.

Last year we upgraded all systems here; 50 watt dehumidification for
verticals, 50 plus 25 for grands, and double tanks for the concert grands.

According to the tables, this should move our "climate" status up from .70
(wild season swings) to 1.0.  In reality however, we still do have some
instruments that fluctuate (seasonally) by as much as 15-20cts, still
requiring pitch correction (increased workload) before tuning.

The dampp-chasers have made an enormous impact on the stability of tunings
throughout most of the year.  It would be inaccurate to say the systems have
neutralized the effects of our climate (from .70 to 1.0) though.  However,
the pitch deviation from season to season has decreased dramatically.

BTW, I've two clients whose pianos (both verticals equipped w/ 5PS50's)
would still swing up to 40cts between seasons.  I've documented this through
pitch corrections, system upgrades and component tests over the last ten to
twelve years.  A year ago I supplied both clients with the Mylar
"back-covers."  On my recent tunings I am pleased to note, both pianos for
the very first time, were within 4 cents of pitch.

In the practice of "good" science, I will continue to monitor these pianos,
but am somewhat ready to go out and by a 300' roll of the stuff for the
University!

Comments?

Mark Cramer, RPT
Brandon University



This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC