Ron Koval wrote: >The "rules" for tuning, were to just follow the directions from >the manual, calculate a tuning and set it on the piano. So, these were not >the "best", tweaked tunings available using the machines, but tunings right >out of the box in the default tuning mode. Hi Ron, So, for the SAT, did you use the Hamilton (243) tuning preset page? or calculate a new FAC tuning? I've found that the preset on my SAT III for the Baldwin 243 (page 041) is a far cry from a measured FAC tuning on all the 243s I've tuned. The bass is particularly different, and the preset tuning has been no good in that area for this piano. Normally, the presets give good evenly stretched 6-3 octaves all the way down, but these are way contracted, way on the sharp side. Example: the FAC presets (page 041) are F=17.9, A=6.2, C=6.0 My measured tuning on one 243: F=17.5, A=6.4, C=4.7 Why is A0 at -11.9 for the preset FAC, and -23.5 for my FAC? That's a lot of difference for numbers which don't appear that far apart. I wish I understood how those numbers are calculated. Now, when I input the same FAC numbers as the preset numbers, I get different results for the scale. A0 is now at -20.6. So, why, if the presets use FAC numbers, don't they produce the same numbers as a calculated scale using the same FAC numbers? Most of the other presets I've used have been acceptable enough, but performing a quick FAC gives pronounced improvement. Averaging all three unisons takes no more than 5 extra minutes and makes a better difference yet. I'm not crazy about the temperament area set for this piano with either the preset or the FAC tuning, but then again, it is an extremely difficult temperament to set aurally, too. F=17.5, then A=6.4 shows why this part of this piano is difficult to tune for any electronic device or aural tuner. Jeff
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC