Dittos here, YMMV but for me it works to spend more time getting the pins solid during the pitch correction. Barring a structural problem, I get a lot of freebies during the fine tuning. Andrew At 04:39 PM 7/9/2006, you wrote: >It's interesting to hear someone else talk about >spending more time in the pitch raise sometimes than >in the final pass. I have also found that sometime I >can get through the final pass faster than the pitch >raise if I am fairly careful doing the pitch raise/or >pitch lowering. >My pin setting during the pr is basically just going >slightly above the pitch I want, and making sure I >feel the bottom of the pin move in the block, and then >easing it back down to the desired pitch. > >I am experimenting between fast and sloppier pitch >raises versus careful ones to see which I really like >best in terms of time and final accuracy. > >Bob Hull > > > > > >--- "pmc033 at earthlink.net" <pmc033 at earthlink.net> >wrote: > > > David: > > Since different techs use different pin setting > > techniques, it's hard to say exactly how much over > > pull will work for every situation. During the last > > few weeks, there was a discussion of overpull > > percentages with RCT users. Some had to adjust the > > overpull because their pianos were coming out too > > sharp using the default percentages. > > For years, I had been using my SAT for pitch > > raises using the single string method described in > > the SAT manual. That is, doing the unisons at the > > end. I would pull the bass 25%, and mentally > > calculate the rest of the string overpull at 30%. I > > would carefully set the pins as close as I could. > > After pulling the unisons in, I would end up sharp > > in the low tenor, less sharp in the rest of the > > tenor section, and the treble came out ok. I used > > to reduce the overpull in the tenor accordingly > > (lots of mental gymnastics here). It seemed to work > > for me. > > Then, I got the Pocket RCT, and began doing > > unisons as I went along. I found that doing this > > produced a more accurate result. After a few months > > of PRCT, I went back to my SAT and began using the > > string by string method. The result was that my SAT > > pitch raises began to come out much closer to pitch > > than before. Since the SAT has a default 25% > > automatic overpull, I use that in the bass. In the > > low tenor, I use 25% also, maybe adding a few cents > > more (maybe closer to 28% overall). Starting in the > > treble, I go back to 30% for the rest of the > > strings. > > I spend much more time in the pitch raise than > > the final pass because I find that the result is > > much closer if I do that. If I spend less time on > > the pitch raise, not being as careful, I have to > > spend more time on the final pass. I do set the > > pins while pitch raising. > > Doing the unisons string by string may seem > > tedious (which is why I resisted doing so for > > years), but the result is more accurate in my > > experience. YMMV. > > Just my $.02. > > > > Paul McCloud > > San Diego > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: David Nereson > > To: Pianotech List > > Sent: 07/09/2006 4:58:54 AM > > Subject: RE: post pitch-raise creep? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org > > [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org]On Behalf Of > > Farrell > > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:04 AM > > To: Pianotech List > > Subject: Re: post pitch-raise creep? > > > > > > Doesn't sound right. When doing the PR, are you > > using an ETD? > > > > Only to measure the amount it's flat and to tune the > > initial A4 sharp by 40% of the amount it was flat. > > > > Unisons as you go? > > > > No. All the middle strings, then all the unisons, > > then the bass, which sometimes needs very little > > raising. I can do it fastest that way. > > > > 41% is very large percentage for overpull. Most > > ETDs recommend between 20% and 35%, depending on the > > area of the scale. > > > > And I say that's usually not enough. If it's 20 > > cents flat, half of that (50%) is 10 cents, and a > > third of that (33%) is about 7 cents. So I pull A4 > > halfway in between those numbers, or about 8 1/2 > > cents sharp, which is roughly 40% of the amount it > > was flat. (I notice in other posts, some tuners use > > up to 37% in some areas of the piano.) Then I do > > the pitch raise, all the octaves, then all the > > unisons. Almost every time, A4 ends up right on > > 440, and the rest of the rough tuning is very close. > > So I go ahead and do the tuning (fine tuning). > > It's after I'm done with the fine tuning, when I go > > back to check for anything that has slipped, that I > > find the middle of the piano and the low tenor has > > crept sharp by a beat or even two. > > > > Immediately after the PR, do you check the middle > > section for pitch? > > > > Yes, and it's almost always right on 440, so I > > proceed with the fine tuning. It's after the fine > > tuning that I find it has crept sharp in the middle. > > The low tenor is also quite sharp, so now I leave > > that area a bit flat during the pitch raise. And > > during the tuning (fine tuning), the SAT always > > seems to "tune" the bass too flat, even if the bass > > didn't need a pitch raise. > > > > If it is at or near target, there is no reason for > > it to creek up. > > > > One wouldn't think so. > > > > How large a pitch gain are you talking about? > > > > Anywhere from just a few beats flat to a half-step > > flat. > > > > I've never noticed such a phenomena. > > > > That's "phenomenon." Phenomena is plural. (Just > > for your own info.) > > --David Nereson, RPT > > > > Terry Farrell > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC