close enough>??

[David M. Porritt]

Ed:

You have proved in the past that you are a brave man!  I think your
procedures and analysis is correct here.  The brave part is declaring
on this list that the piano doesn't have to be within 0.002 cents
before you start to get good results.  Personally, I think one of the
big differences is that you tune the unisons as you go.  I have
always believed that strip muting the whole piano requires that it be
much closer than if you do the unisons as you go.  I don't know all
of the science involved in this phenomenon, and I don't have time to
explain my conjecture, but I'm convinced that stripping the whole
piano requires starting with a more in-tune piano.

dave

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/21/2003 at 10:03 AM A440A@aol.com wrote:

>Greetings, 
>   I have been reading the discussions on speed, tuning accuracy,
etd vs. 
>aural, etc..  So, this a.m.  I thought I would try a controlled
test. The 
>piano is a Yamaha C3, one year old.  It is in a large instrument
rehearsal 
>hall at the university.  I had tuned it 11/22/02 to ET at 440.  
>   This morning I checked it and found it sounded reasonably in tune
with 
>itself insofar as unisons and single octaves were concerned.  The
Double
>and 
>Triple octaves were dead sounding and checking against the SAT, it
was
>flat.  
>The flatness was:  
>A0 at -3 cents
>A2 at -4
>C3  -10 cents
>C4 = -8
>C5= -7
>C6= -10
> C7= -12
>C8= -14 
>
>    I decided to do a straight, one-pass, totally machine, damn the 
>torpedoes, SAT pitch raise.  I began on A0 and went to the top of
the
>piano, 
>changing the pitch correction figures at each A and D as I went.  By
the
>time 
>I reached the 5th octave, the C was -9 cents, due to the pulling
done
>below.  
>S0, I was using a 2.2 cent overpull at this point and was leaving
clean 
>unisons as I went.  The entire process took 54 minutes.   
>   I finished just as an accompanist and two string players walked
in, so 
>asked them to play it and listen.  Around here, everybody knows that
they
>can 
>be honest with me, and they also know that there is no telling what
sort
>of 
>temperament I might be throwing at them, so there is no fear or
loathing 
>involved in letting ol' Ed know that this or that tuning doesn't
work for 
>them.  Their response was: 
>"It sounds beautiful!"  I asked them to check the double and triple
>octaves.  
>Their response was, " They are so clean and even!"  
>   As the music, cases, and rosin bags were being opened, I zeroed
the 
>machine and went back to check my results.  Every single A was
within one 
>cent of where it was supposed to be, all the C's were too, except a
slight 
>sharpening in the last two octaves,(resulting, I surmise, from there
being
>no 
>further strings above them to take advantage of the overpull
results). 
>   So, this raises the question of always needing two passes.  Is a
one
>cent 
>variation worth the extra time? I believe it is not, in this venue,
where
>the 
>pitch will change that much from day to day, depending on the
lights, 
>presence of the orchestra, HVAC fluctuations,etc. Had I been in a
>recording 
>studio,  I would have done a rough pass first, but more for
insurance than 
>anything else.    
>    In so much of the debate over relative values of machines vs.
ears, 
>we 
>overlook the practical considerations.  I would like to see a
comparison
>of 
>results that pits two tuners against one another in a more real
world 
>setting. Something like, two pianos that are 8 cents flat, with
maybe a 
>cleaning crew in the hallway, and with a 1 hour deadline, etc.  Oh
yea, 
>it 
>would also be good for these two tuners to have already tuned two or
three 
>pianos in the hours previous to the test, so fatigue factors get to
be 
>introduced, also.   
>    It is one thing to compare tuning procedures in museum or test
lab 
>settings, but in the real world of getting the job done for money,
I 
>wouldn't begin to favor a strictly aural approach.  Perhaps on a
really
>poor 
>scale, the results would be closer, but on a good piano, in good
>condition, I 
>submit that the use of a machine allows far better results with far
less 
>stress.
>Regards,   
>Ed Foote RPT 
>( At the St. Louis regional conference several years ago, I had to
tune
>the 
>piano in 65 minutes.  It was 20 cents flat, there was a change of
>temperament 
>to be done, and the window washers were outside the big plate glass
>windows 
>with a large hose squirting on them as I worked.  The feedback I got
that
>day 
>in the temperament class was that the piano sounded really, really
>good....)
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives


_____________________________
David M. Porritt
dporritt@mail.smu.edu
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275
_____________________________