Hello, I am operating in the Caribbean and need some guidance as i launch my business. I would like to know the current price list for all possible tasks and services on piano jobs, since it has been two years since I became certified. Looking forward to hearing from you. Apprecitatively, Julien Blackman From: pianotech-request at ptg.org Subject: pianotech Digest, Vol 7, Issue 29 To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:56:29 -0700 Send pianotech mailing list submissions to pianotech at ptg.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech_ptg.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to pianotech-request at ptg.org You can reach the person managing the list at pianotech-owner at ptg.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of pianotech digest..." --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: ricb at pianostemmer.no To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 01:14:47 +0100 Subject: Re: [pianotech] [CAUT] More Bohemia Hi Bernard. I really don't want to get into making a case for who was first with what per sé. It is enough for me to recognize that others were before me when it comes to tuning with the idea of perfect 12ths as a priority and not octaves. I'm really unsure when it comes down to just plain listening to the end sound of a piano just how much different your Tunic software is with what Virgil ends up with, or what Gary would end up with or what I end up with. And, as I said it is here I find the most interesting path forward. I do think tho that in the case of Gary, myself, and you.... we are all clearly onto very similar ideas... tho to be sure there are significant differences. But lets not over state these. For example... and from a purely maths perspective to illustrate what I mean... you stated in your last that 3:1 is not the same as 6^(19/31). This is technically true. But the latter does work out to 2.998688889... (:1). Translated to real world mechanics with all the imperfections that implies.... we are not really talking about anything different. In a real piano... with real inharmonicity if you take for example D3 and tune its 3rd partial to 440, and then tune A4's fundemental to exactly 440 or just sooooo slightly less then what the above difference implies... you change really nothing in the resulting relationship between A4's fundemental and D3's fundamental. D3's fundamental is a result of tuning D3's 3rd partial to 440. So its already fixed. Tuning A4's fundemental to this same 440... or 440 minus the 0.00006297... difference 6^(19/31) implies is not even a promile of a cent then in relation to that resultant D3 fundemental. But all this is really academic for my part. I'd have to actually study Gary's article very closely a couple times to completely digest all his article intended to convey. But I am quite certain, and he himself says this outright in an email to me, that in practicalities he didn't listen to octaves at all when tuning. Rather he was listening and tuning for pure(ish) 12ths and 19ths. It is this general perspective that interested me when I first read it, and that was timed with my introduction to ETD's and nearly immediate observation that the available single partial ETD's of the time were seriously flawed... a stance I maintain today. They sample a few partials ladders of a few tones... predict an expected inharmonicity table for that entire piano and off one goes. All para inharmonicity (which is far more significant then we are led to believe) is simply disregarded. To be sure... this approach does yield better results then many tuners can get by ear... at least more consistent results. But it seemed to me at the time that we should be looking at several partials at the same time. And I said so... which was rebuked by many saying things would get too confusing. A comment one could expect from tuners who listen to coincidents at their frequencies I might add. In contrast... Virgil types would immediately find something that rhymed here with their thinking..... if first they were to equate their thinking into the realm of coincident partials instead of the more holistic sound they listen for. Vertituner came out... and it was a definite improvement at least on paper... tho I never did manage to get ahold of exactly what tuning priorities were applied in the weighting algorithms that dynamically evolve as the tuning progresses. So I imagined that since we use aural tests that actually emphasis the 12th as an octave check, which automatically take into consideration any inharmonicity and para inharmonicity as well in the case one listens holistically, given Gary's writting and a couple other tidbits I ran into at the time... that I could simply use Tunelab 97 to impose exacting 3:1 12ths on top of a pianos inharmonicity as I have described. And, as you have also found much earlier then I did. following a completely different entrance route, this actually does work quite well. My route was empirical trial and effort most of the way... with a minimum of theory involved. I had no need to look more closely at Gary's article at the time... I just read <<tune with 12ths instead of octaves>>. I did run into a very interesting bit about how octaves stretch is affected by doing this... something I was pointed towards by Jim Colemans review of my initial discussions about this. The area between C5 and F6 gets changed stretch wise, while the end stretch number of C8 is fairly low... at least by American standards. You end up with a stretch that is actually quite moderate....but in some regards seem the opposite. So I plotted this on an Excell spread sheet and posted that on a few occasions. I didn't get much response on those postings. So you see... none of my work threatens any authenticity issues you have. I really can not answer for what Gary's article means in that context as I haven't ever seen the need to draw the needed comparisons to form an authoritive opinion... due to the more pragmatic approach my own path has been on. To summarize.... I think it wisest to let you and whomever else is actually concerned address those issues if you (and they) feel a need. I was clearly last out with any of this and have never tried to claim anything else. But to be honest with you... I'm kind of pleased with myself over the whole affair. Seems my more simple minded approach is in line with the more theoretical based paths both you and Gary, each in your own way plotted out. Its kind of neat to know that I figured out something very cool all on my own... and that it actually worked. I otherwise have no need to take any credit for anything.... I'm not interested in such things myself. But this points to exactly where we can all bear this further in a constructive direction.... namely to forward the whole concept of 12ths priority tuning. And I think a first very important step to take at this point in that effort is to quantify in terms of actual resultant coincident partials spread how these aforementioned tuning methods compare. And again... I would encourage any of my American colleagues that have a few bucks and are interested enough to buy Tunic software. I'm quite sure it would be worth the purchase... despite the fact that it offers just one single type tuning... or one very specific stretch if you like. Cheers RicB --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: roy.peters at mindspring.com To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 19:33:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [pianotech] Baldwin Model A??? Where on the piano is the marking? Baldwin's usually have the scale designation cast on the tail end of the plate. Sometimes they have a letter preceding the serial number, and I have been uncertain whether it is always a model designation. For example, on a model C (or at least a "C" cast in the plate) you might have a serial number K#####. I have thought that it may be some sort of factory designation (rather than a model K) . I don't know what it was actually sold as. I think that I have seen A's preceding serial numbers, which is why I ask. It might not actually be a model designation. Then again, maybe it was. I don't really know. I have a 1943 F, and the F is positioned above the serial number, so I think that does indicate the model. SF is cast in the plate. The M had an SA scale designation on the plate. Does anyone know if the A was a predecessor? I'm thinking that the C became the SC scale , which was called the model L. It would make sense that the A became the SA scale. It was a similar size. Similarly, the F became the SF, and the D became an SD, right? Roy Peters, RPT Cincinnati, Ohio -----Original Message----- From: Tom Servinsky Sent: May 2, 2009 6:34 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Baldwin Model A??? 5'4" ----- Original Message ----- From: David Love To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:31 AM Subject: [pianotech] Baldwin Model A??? Did Baldwin ever make a Model “A” grand? If so, what size was it? David Love www.davidlovepianos.com --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: toddpianoworks at att.net To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:38:02 -0700 Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action brackets I got my brackets this week as well. I e-mailed two weeks ago, after no response, I sent another e-mail with the same message, after no response, I called and talked with service, viola -- they came. You may need to be persistent with them, but it does work. TODD PIANO WORKS Matthew Todd, Piano Technician (979) 248-9578 http://www.toddpianoworks.com --- On Sat, 5/2/09, wimblees at aol.com <wimblees at aol.com> wrote: From: wimblees at aol.com <wimblees at aol.com> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action brackets To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Saturday, May 2, 2009, 10:16 PM Charles How long did it take to get the brackets? I ordered mine 3 weeks ago. The piano will be strung and ready to go in another week, but I still have the action to do. Wim -----Original Message----- From: CHARLES BECKER <cbeckercpt at verizon.net> To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Sat, 2 May 2009 9:10 am Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action brackets My brackets did indeed arrive today. I will let you all know the end result. Thanks, and good luck to those who wait. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Servinsky" <tompiano at bellsouth.net> To: <pmc033 at earthlink.net>; <pianotech at ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action brackets > Paul > It's not a matter if YC is supplying them for free or not. It's getting > them to respond to our orders and get the parts out. The last set that I > had to order took 6 months by the time it got to my doorstep. There is no > excuse for that. > As I see it, the handwriting is on the wall for YC and supplying these > brackets. They have already taken a pretty big hit for all of the free > parts they've had to provide, plus the labor services paid in the past. It > all adds up, and guess what, there are plenty more which are going to need > this repair. > Given the down economy and how all businesses cutting back anywhere they > can, it wouldn't surprised in the bit if the YC bean-counters eventually > pulls the plug on providing the free brackets offer altogether. > Tom Servinsky > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <pmc033 at earthlink.net> > To: <pianotech at ptg.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 11:34 PM > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action > brackets > > >> >> If Y.C. is still supplying the brackets free, where's the profit motive >> for Pianotek to produce them? When Y.C. were charging $100 or whatever, >> I >> could understand an independent supplier charging less. >> The last set I replaced, Y.C. paid $180 for labor. That was last year. >> Has that changed? >> Paul McCloud >> San Diego >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net> >>> To: <pianotech at ptg.org> >>> Date: 04/22/2009 8:11:59 PM >>> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Not again, Young Chang contact for action >> brackets >>> >>> Tom Servinsky wrote: >>> > I'm surprised the folks at the big supply houses haven't jumped on the >>> > bandwagon and started getting these produced for their inventory. >>> > Seems >>> > like this would be a guaranteed cash-cow for many years to come. >>> > Listening Pianotek? >>> > Tom Servinsky >>> >>> I've been wondering about that for years. >>> Ron N >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > Can't afford a new spring wardrobe? Go shopping in your closet instead! --Forwarded Message Attachment-- From: davidlovepianos at comcast.net To: pianotech at ptg.org Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 16:56:22 -0700 Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany Best to ask Lloyd Meyer as to the specifics. He's better equipped to answer this question than I am. But my understanding was that there was no difference. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PianoCare2 Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 2:03 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany The Renner parts are still different from original Steinway (I am being pedantic, but they are) and here is a line from the German catalogue.. Grand piano hammerheads 6KmUd GL82/72 20Bass Steinway&Sons, not available in EU & NAFTA Grand hammershanks "Steinway", not available in EU & NAFTA I've never tried to order these.. it might be an interesting project, being a concert use instrument, why not get the whole action. I have seen a new action with wippens, with new hammers, and then the tech decided to save a few dollars by using Renner sourced shanks. He got grilled by Hamburg big time. Not as strict in the US? Brian -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Sunday, 3 May 2009 12:10 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany Of course Abel parts are different from Renner. The Renner USA parts do have a slightly different configuration but are primarily designed to be used on NY Steinways. While Renner doesn't advertise the availability of the Hamburg Steinway parts, they are available. That includes hammers. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PianoCare2 Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:59 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany David It may be made by Renner. but.The Steinway Hamburg is a Steinway action. The flanges on a Steinway are slightly different than the ones available from Renner and Abel. Looking at the Renner catalogue, genuine Steinway is not available in Europe or the Americas. The Renner or Abel copies are the only parts available other than to purchase the genuine Steinway parts. Most techs use these copies instead of using the genuine parts. Same with hammers. It's all about the Steinway marketing...some people call it control. The Steinway action rails distinguish the difference between the Renner and Steinway actions. I was reacting to the point of replacing the original action with a Renner action. I would assume that the action rails will split in North America the same as they do in my country. Why not replace the original with a replacement from the source and not a different action. I would also assume that this piano comes from Florida? Why not argue the point that there are American technicians who could perform an excellent rebuild of this instrument without having the expense and time of sending the instrument to Germany. Brian Wilson ________________________________ From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love Sent: Saturday, 2 May 2009 12:10 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany Well, the Hamburg Steinway action is a Renner action. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PianoCare2 Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 6:31 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany Sorry to be a few hours behind this...but Hamburg does rebuilds. the whole lot. new boards, pin block, refinishing.. A colleague of mine has seen the rebuilding part of the Hamburg factory, and he saw some very good work. Why replace the Steinway action with a Renner ?? (fire suit is definitely on) If you are taking the effort to send the instrument to Germany, why don' t you send it to where it originated from. Would you send your BMW to Mercedes for an engine overhaul? Sorry to use this example.do I need another fire suit ?? Brian ________________________________ From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of RON MAY, RPT Sent: Saturday, 2 May 2009 7:11 AM To: Pianotech Subject: [pianotech] Feurich of Germany Has anyone out there ever had any experience with "Feurich of Germany" and their rebuild and/or total reconstruction of top end concert grands. Their name has poped up as a possiblility for the total re-construction of a Hamburg-Steinway grand. The thought is to ship the piano to Germany. It is my understanding that the piano would be totally reconstructed with a Renner Action, new board, block, totally refinished. All I along with several professional concert artists personally believe all is needed is new hammers and shanks and refinishing. Thank you for your input. Ron May No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.7/2085 - Release Date: 04/30/09 17:53:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 - Release Date: 05/01/09 17:52:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.13/2091 - Release Date: 05/01/09 17:52:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100811/f1841824/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC