SAT III Question

[pianolover 88]

I too, was a victim of Joe's "wrath", and for no reason at all. Mr. Garrett 
please lighten up and be helpful, not hurtful.

Terry Peterson
Precision Piano Service
Torrance, CA

>From: Greg Newell <gnewell@ameritech.net>
>Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org
>To: pianotech@ptg.org
>Subject: Re: SAT III Question
>Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:22:53 -0400
>
>Terry and list,
>     For what it's worth I agree with you. I've watched and read the posts 
>from
>this man since he came in to the fray a bit ago. I've read few constructive
>posts but even more that aren't. Perhaps he feels superior to us lowly
>associates. Then again perhaps he's just getting grumpy in his advanced 
>years.
>Lighten up Joe.
>
>Greg
>
>Farrell wrote:
>
> > 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
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
>--
>Greg Newell
>Greg's Piano Forté
>12970 Harlon Ave.
>Lakewood, Ohio 44107
>216-226-3791
>mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com