Jim said: "/Joe said: <I'm curious, since 425cps would only apply to something made before 1875 and even then, would have to have solid reasoning to go that route/. Its a Miller square which appears to be late 1860,s. My reasoning was structural. In analyzing the string scale, I weighed the bass spiral wound wires to come up with existing tensions which @ 435 hz ended up 180-200 lbs monochords, 250-275 lb/unison bichords. The pinning of the base bridge was so close together that the bass cap and root completely blew up...the poor cap never had a prayer. In addition to that, there was a scary difference between the speaking lengths measured under tension and with tension zero'd out at some locations on the plate. The pin offsets on the Bass bridge were inconsistent and quite aggressive, so that probably contributed to bass bridge mess..I corrected the offsets, and used a Delignit cap there. But, considering the following points: -that I have been experimenting with significantly reduced bass tensions on small venue modern pianos with what I consider to be excellent results (small Paullelo cores maintaining high BP%). FYI excellent results meaning less noise and growl, and more perception of fundamental, even on small scales. -/Joe said: <I'm curious, since 425cps would only apply to something made before 1875 and even then, would have to have solid reasoning to go that route/. Its a Miller square which appears to be late 1860,s. My reasoning was structural. In analyzing the string scale, I weighed the bass spiral wound wires to come up with existing tensions which @ 435 hz ended up 180-200 lbs monochords, 250-275 lb/unison bichords. The pinning of the base bridge was so close together that the bass cap and root completely blew up...the poor cap never had a prayer. In addition to that, there was a scary difference between the speaking lengths measured under tension and with tension zero'd out at some locations on the plate. The pin offsets on the Bass bridge were inconsistent and quite aggressive, so that probably contributed to bass bridge mess..I corrected the offsets, and used a Delignit cap there. But, considering the following points: -that I have been experimenting with significantly reduced bass tensions on small venue modern pianos with what I consider to be excellent results (small Paullelo cores maintaining high BP%). FYI excellent results meaning less noise and growl, and more perception of fundamental, even on small scales. - the instrument is and was a parlor instrument, meaning power ( a relative term) is not desirable - the client is not an accomplished pianist and does not play with other instrumentalists I looked at the above structural indications, which I consider to be warning signs, and decided to hedge my bets as well as continue my low tension experiments. So I dropped the tensions some as well, though kept BP% respectably elevated) Call me a masher if you like...sweet music to my ears... Jim I looked at the above structural indications, which I consider to be warning signs, and decided to hedge my bets as well as continue my low tension experiments. So I dropped the tensions some as well, though kept BP% respectably elevated) Call me a masher if you like...sweet music to my ears... Jim, No "masher" here.<G> All are valid reasons to drop the tensions/pitch. I am curious,...when you said: "the owner is not an accomplished pianist and does not play with other instrumentalists." Hmmm? Does that mean that you did NOT change the scale, but are simply tuning the thing to 425cps? That is NOT the way I would recommend. If another tuner got involved and didn't know all of the situation...decided to just tune that sucker at 440cps! Yikes! The Scale needs to be changed, so that the instrument can be tuned to 440cps, w/o causing undo stress on the weak components of the instrument, imo. That's my take on that. Joe Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain of the Tool Police Squares R I
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC