Jim's Stretch

[pianoman]

----------
> From: rmartin21@juno.com
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: Jim's Stretch
> Date: Friday, July 11, 1997 11:53 AM
> 
> Norm
> 
> You're right! Using the old F tuning on the sat is preferable, I feel ,
> in cases of bad scaling. Once in a while, though,  I like to experiment
> with different approaches.
> 
> I was trying to see if Jim Coleman had any suggestions on tuning this
> kind of scale with his new stretch tuning approach
> 
> Thanks for the offering, Norm
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Fri, 11 Jul 1997 00:16:37 -0500 barre41 <barre46@ibm.net> writes:
> >rmartin21@juno.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> Jim
> >> 
> >> Tuned two grands this AM using your suggestions for stretch tunings. 
> >One
> >> was a Baldwin L and the other a Young Chang G157.
> >> I was frankly amazed how close the tunings were to my own aural 
> >tuning
> >> which undoubtedly means that I've been stretching like crazy anyway.
> >> snip
> >> Any suggestions on the Chang or the Baldwin studio in so far as 
> >changing
> >> settings other that the A?
> >> 
> >> regards
> >> 
> >> Ralph
> >I am answering this to get some comments on the procedure I have been
> >using when I find a piano with wild FAC readings. I just don't trust
> >them and believe that they are a sign of bad scaling. Therefore I 
> >revert
> >to the original stretch tuning we used before FAC came out. This gives
> >you a good temperment in the middle of the piano and the extremes are
> >tuned to that. Is there a better way than this?
> >
> >Norm Barrett
> >Memphis, TN
Dear Everyone,
I have found that using the old  stretch number tuning works best in poor
and many mediocre pianos.  At least from F-6 and out you can track your
tuning to whatever interval you please.
James Grebe from St Louis
pianoman@inlink.com> >