Nothing magic here, I just tune starting at F3, tuning the left string while muting the center and right. I tune the center string next, followed by the right, then proceed to F#3, and so on up to C8. Then I go back to E3 down to A0 unisons as I go. If a pitch raise is needed I just tune from A0 - C8 unisons as I go but no mutes. The spectrum display (zoomed in) of TuneLab helps you to see as well as hear what the separate strings are doing. That's one of the many great things about TuneLab. Interestingly, when you get a false beat on a single string, you can actually see the two different frequencies that the single string is making if you watch the spectrum display. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 1/23/2003 at 8:51 PM SUSAN P SWEARINGEN wrote: >Hello, > >Could those of you that tune unisons as you go explain your procedure? I >use a Verituner and use the following method. > >1. Strip mute tenor and treble areas >2. Tune temperament area and also notes down to the tenor/bass break >(middle strings only) >3. Tune octaves up to C88 (middle strings only) >4. Pull out the strip mutes and tune unisons from C88 down to the >tenor/bass >break (tuned aurally) >5. Tune down from the tenor bass break down to A0, tuning unisons as I go. > >I will always do a quick pitch correction if the piano is off more than >about 4 cents. If the piano is 4 cents or better (almost never on the >pianos I tune), then I will go right to fine tuning as described in the >steps above. > >The problem I've encountered is by the time I get to step 5, the middle and >upper registers usually settle by .5 to 1 cent. Of course I suppose to >get >best accuracy using this method, I should perform step 5 aurally instead of >using the ETD. Would tuning unisons as I go take care of the above >problem? >For people that tune unisons as they go, what exact procedure are you >using? > >Thanks, > >Corte Swearingen > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David M. Porritt" <dm.porritt@verizon.net> >To: <pianotech@ptg.org> >Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 8:40 AM >Subject: Re: close enough>?? > > >> 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 >> _____________________________ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >_______________________________________________ >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 _____________________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC