SAT III Question

[Farrell]

Gee whizz Joe. Cut me a little slack. IMHO, it is not a no-brainer whether
to provide a written report for a pre-purchase inspection. These are usually
done with a short notice (would do little good to tell the piano shopper
that I will fit you into the schedule 3 weeks from now) - so you often have
a separate trip across town (one hour at least for driving). I usually spend
about an hour inspecting the piano to be thorough. That's at least two hours
right there (often more). It would take me at least another half-hour to
write letter and get in mail. So now you have 2-1/2 to three hours at least.
I don't know how folks can do all this and only charge a tuning fee. I would
have to charge $150 - I believe that would price me out of the market. What
would you charge? This is why I asked the question. Condescending responses
are not appreciated.

As for the SAT III question, I did read the article back then, and I read it
again over breakfast today. I am not lazy. I do read. I read each Journal
cover to cover. I am always interested in learning new approaches to things.
I do not appreciate the tone of your response (or David). In your article,
you present an alternative method for use of the SAT. Great. The piano
technician industry is more rich for insightful contributions like your
article. But you did not answer my question. I am simply trying to
understand exactly how the SAT works and how pianos work. I do not
appreciate your insults.

I will now quit before the smoke coming from my ears turns to fire.

Terry Farrell
Piano Tuning & Service
Tampa, Florida
mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com

>Terry,
>Write the details on PAPER! That's really a no-brainer. AND CHARGE MORE!
For
>the most part, all technicians do not charge what they are worth! It's high
>time we all quit under-selling ourselves.
>Regards, Joe Garrett
----- Original Message -----
From: Farrell <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 4:31 AM
Subject: Pre-Purchase Inspection Liability

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Garrett" <joegarrett@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: SAT III Question


> David,
> EXACTOMONDO!
> Big Grins.
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Ilvedson <ilvey@jps.net>
> To: pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 6:07 PM
> Subject: Re: SAT III Question
>
>
> > Yea, but Joe that would mean reading it first...;-]
> >
> > David I.
> >
> > *********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********
> >
> > On 4/24/01 at 3:31 PM Joseph Garrett wrote:
> >
> > >Terry,
> > >Why screw around with FAC in the 1st place. Try the method I advocated
in
> > >the Jan.2000 issue of the PTJ. It'll make you a better tuner, so you
> won't
> > >have to sweat the small stuff (pso).:-)
> > >Regards
> > >Joe Garrett, R.P.T. (Oregon)
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Farrell <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
> > >To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > >Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 6:22 PM
> > >Subject: SAT III Question
> > >
> > >
> > >> Every once in a while (it happened the other day on a Knabe console
> > about
> > >> 15 - 30 years old) I'll tune a piano that seems to defy the SAT. I do
> > the
> > >> FAC in the normal manner, but when I start tuning and checking
octaves,
> > I
> > >> find that the calculated octave stretch above A4 is way too much. I
> find
> > >I
> > >> need to enter a Double Octave Beat (DOB) factor of up to -2.0 to
settle
> > >the
> > >> calculated tuning down enough for my tastes. This is after measuring
> the
> > >"A"
> > >> and "C" values several times - and even notes next to them. Anyone
have
> > a
> > >> thought on why this might occur?
> > >>
> > >> Terry Farrell
> > >> Piano Tuning & Service
> > >> Tampa, Florida
> > >> mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
>