Fred, > Yes, this makes it much clearer. Looks like you have a tight humidity >control system, which is a big factor (though I hope you are actually >measuring humidity range to see if it works as advertised). Actually, I haven't, except sporadically, because the building is only 5 years old, so I'm assuming that barring any problems that might happen, it's staying pretty close to the range it's supposed to. I've just reset my gauge here in the shop and I'll check over the next few days or so and see how much it varies in here. It's in the middle of the building, no windows, door rarely open except just to go in or out, i.e. it should be fairly stable. About the only time we have much of a problem is that RARE time in Houston when the humidity outside gets so low that the system doesn't have enough moisture to pull in to regulate the building's humidity level. >The area I >wonder about is "Standards." Looks like you have a lot that are not >given much attention. Perhaps you are describing what you actually do, >rather than what ought to be done. You're probably generally correct about this. I went back and changed a lot of the 'fair' to 'good', primarily in classrooms and for all performance type of teachers, whether upright or grand. I left all practice room verticals in the Fair category because they're primarily used for other than piano practice and with the relative stability of the climate, I figured that would be OK. Do you agree? I also added two harpsichords that I had forgotten to do originally. This all changed my Workload from 116.042 to 104.660, Techs needed from 1.146 to 1.290 and Standards from 1.497 to 1.341. >The revised formula has a much finer >range of levels of service, which should help, This was one of my problems. I feel like there are quite a few pianos here, primarily verticals, that because of their usage, should be kept at the Good level for tuning, but at Fair for the voicing and regulation. Also the other thing I've mentioned about the rebuilding when a restringing with no pin block or soundboard is called for. This also influenced which category I put some instruments into. I usually listed them as fair instead of poor because of the soundboard thing but obviously, it takes more time to do the action and stringing work than it would just action work. >but we should also be >clear in filling in the numbers that we are trying to produce a >recommendation, not a description of what we're doing. I agree and that probably did influence some of my ratings. Do the new ones stated above sound more realistic? Regards, Avery > If you leave out the "Standards" factor, the formula gives you around >77 as the recommended workload - pretty reasonable given actual good >humidity control. Plugging in the revised formula will probably put the >recommendation will probably produce a result close to 70. >Regards, >Fred >Avery Todd wrote: >> >> Fred, >> >> I'd already changed a few of the 'F'airs to 'P'oors to see what >> would happen. Here are my totals currently: >> >> Number of pianos - 133 >> Workload - 116.042 >> Techs needed - 1.146 >> >> Workload factor - 60 >> >> Condition - 0.970 >> Quality - 1.133 >> Climate - 1.293 >> Age - 0.831 >> Usage - 1.137 >> Standards - 1.497 >> Uprights - 54 > > Grands - 79
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC