Agreed Terry. As with so many of these kinds of discussions, a more precise clarification of terms clears up most of the apparent difference in views. In this case, what one means by overpull. For my own part, I simply dont like the idea of tuning the first pass higher then 442. Nor do I see the need to stress the instrument thus. I'll be the first to admit I have no hard data or science to back up this feeling. It just doesnt seem to me to be a good idea, especially when its simply not necessary to get a good stable tuning at pitch in a very reasonable amount of time. Cheers RicB Farrell wrote: >Richard wrote: > > > >>Actually, you can usually get a 100 cent flat piano at 440 pitch within >>3-4 passes and never go above 442 to do it. I suppose you can call that >>overpull, but thats not what folks normally mean when they use the term. >> >> > >Agreed. I would call that about 8 cents overpull (or 8% for a half-step-flat >piano) in the mid-section of the piano! And actually, with that amount of >overpull, you might be about 18 cents flat in the middle of the piano after >the first pass, so maybe only a 5-cent overpull on a second pass would be >required to get up to 440! You shouldn't need the extra two passes (well, >maybe one more pass in the high treble if you are only going 8 cents sharp). > >That's what overpull is - tuning a string a calculated amount sharp to >achieve a targeted pitch. That's what I call overpull. So what do folks >normally mean when they use the term? > >I don't care if it's one or two cents overpull - if you are doing it to get >the piano to end up at a certain pitch, then those one or two cents are >overpull. > >At least in my book. :-) > >Terry Farrell > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC