---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hey Joe, You are not alone in your feelings. Charlotte Eschmann (ex DC chapter) in our chapter says she never goes above the pitch and just sneaks up on it from below, but she is an aural tuner. She doesn't have a SAT or V100 to compute what she needs to do to make a string arrive on pitch correctly without guessing. The great majority of us, though,tune to a computed sharp pitch which will drop very close to A440 when you complete the pass. I noticed several people mentioned raising 100 cents flat to 10 or 20 cents sharp the first pass. This I don't do. I would bring the pitch up to -30 cents the first pass which would drop to about -40 cents after the pass. Then I would set the pitch at +10 cents and do the second pass which will result in a pitch of 1 cent or so sharp of A440. Again, I would do all the wound strings in the bass and low tenor at +5 cents and the treble at +16 cents to put that section a little sharp. The upper half of octave 7 doesn't drop off, so I put the pitch back down to +10. See, there wasn't a single "overshoot" in there anywhere! :-) When I started this this thread, I asked for ways to recover from a stupid mistake. What I did to correct the problem worked poorly and took more time than I expected it to. What I got was the assumption that I didn't know how to do pitch raises when in fact I've done thousands of them in the 27 years I've been tuning! When you change the pitch you are setting the strings in the middle of a pitch raise, you can't just go through it again in the hope that it will suddenly be better somehow. You have to figure out how much the basic pitch of the piano has been altered by the mistake and try to compensate for it on the next pass or you will be chasing your tail! What I did was okay, but it two more passes to remove the glitches enough to start on a good tuning. Joe, I have no idea where the journal you mentioned is. My office was a mess before I left for 3 months. It's unreal now! I would appreciate a copy of what you have if you have the time. No rush required. Thanks, Warren Joseph Garrett wrote: > Warren, > You are partially correct. However, my system does not employ "over-shoots", > (whatever that really is). To better understand it you need to read the > article. I would like to add that, through a process of trial and error and > string scale Breaking Strength calculations, thus is the basis for my > system. I don't believe the "over-shoots" theory is valid and is/can be a > greater source of breaking strings. I hate replacing strings, in the field! > I'm going to search my archives and see if I have a workable copy of the > article. If so, then I will be happy to send to any who are interested. (It > is much too long to post on the list. Besides, I have too many that are > "ticked" at me for whatever reason(s) in some of my previous posting(s). I > don't want to anger the "Gods" again. <G> > Joe -- Warren Fisher RPT fish@Communique.net 1422 Briarwood Dr. Slidell, LA 70458-3102 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/3f/52/bb/44/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC