>Do any of the techs here use the Yamaha PT-100 tuner? I haven't used a fork >for over 10 years, except to aurally demostrate to the customer just how >flat their piano is. I've used the Hale sight-o-tuner with good results. >I use the Hale tuner to find the pitch of the piano, find the pitch of the >organ in a church if the piano must be tuned to it, tune the piano to >standard pitch, or sometimes to check temperment on weird scaled pianos. >The Yamaha tuner has intrigued me for some time. Any comments on it would >be welcomed. >Daryl Matthies >MATHIS PIANO SERVICE Hi Daryl, I use a PT100 and really like it. It is accurate to 0.2 cent and covers the entire piano. It has builtin scales for the Yamaha M1, U1, U3, C3, C5 and CF. In addition it has a flat scale and one labeled CP which I think is for antique temperments. When doing non-Yamaha pianos, I've found that those scales widen the temperment a little bit too much, and I have to decrease it. I tune F3, the first note in my temperment. Then I set the tuner to measure the second partial of F3. That partial is frequently 1-2 cents flat relative to the builtin scale, and I distribute that flatness over the temperment octave by subtracting 0.1 or 0.2 cents from each note in the temperment. The result is a temperment octave that begins and ends with the first & second partials of F3. Then I use the tuner to tune the piano using 2:1 octaves. When I'm tuning below the temperment, I adjust the tuner to have no movement in the display for the first partial of the higher note (it has already been tuned). Then, I tune the lower note (second partial) to have no movement in the tuning. This allows me to tune octaves with 0.2 cent accuracy, which is better than I can hear octaves. When I tune above the temperment, I just reverse the procedure by adjusting the tuner to have zero movement in the display for the second partial of the lower note (it has already been tuned), and I tune the first partial of the higher note to have no movement. This procedure was given by Reblitz in his book. I use the tuner to tune unisons, getting 0.2 cent accuracy. I can hear unisons that are off 0.2-0.4 cents, so using the tuner hasn't given me greater accuracy in my unisons, but I think it is faster for me, especially in old pianos with "jumpy" strings and strings that don't want to move. One of the things I like about using the tuner for unisons, is that the tuner allows me to measure the rate at which the pitch is rising as I tighten the string. This helps me avoid broken strings. For example, when the pitch of a string is within four or five cents of where it should be, it should take very little movement of the hammer to bring it on pitch. If I need more movement of my hammer than I should, then I know that all I'm doing is tightening the small section of string from the tuning pin to the bridge, and that means that I'll break the string if I keep going. I can see in the movement of the display how fast or how slow the pitch is rising, and that tells me if the string movement is getting past the bridge. Of course, tuners can do the same thing with their ears. What I'm doing is substituting an electronic device for my ears. Before anyone flames me for using the tuner to tune unisons and octaves, let me mention that anyone who has studied the theory of making measurements knows that differential measurements (difference of two almost equal values) is more accurate than absolute measurements. When a tuner tunes by ear, he or she is doing differential measurements. When I tune with the PT100, I'm doing absolute measurements. Thus, there is great risk that my tunings may not be as accurate as they would be if I tuned only by ear. However, the 0.2 cent accuract of the PT100 is great enough that I can do absolute tunings and get good results. That is, I adjust each string separately via the tuner, and the resulting unison is great. I listen to each unison and each octave and satisfy myself that the tuning is the best I can get. Once in a while, I have to touch up a string by ear because the tuner isn't quite on. My background is as an electronic engineer and computer programmer, so to me using electronic test instruments is "normal". For me, I get the best of both worlds, a accurate tuner and my ears. When they both agree, then I'm happy with that note. I do alot of school tunings in noisy rooms and hallways, and I like the PT100 for that because it allows me to tune when I can't hear the beats. The SAT is a better tuner than the PT100 but it costs considerable more. It has (I think 0.1 cent accuracy). In addition, it has FAC tuning (I've forgotten the octaves for those three notes). From hearing those three notes, it calculates the "proper" settings for all 88 keys, thus taking into account the inharmonicity of the particular piano, as given by those three notes. This would be great for noisy rooms. My method of using the PT100 takes into account the inharmonicity of F3, and I have to make the assumption that the inharmonicity is the same for the other notes. However, since I'm tuning 2:1 octaves, I take into account the inharmonicity of the second partials in tuning adjacent octaves. /Allen Leigh ---------------------------- Amateur Radio Station W7RCP
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC