stability of pitch raises

[Farrell]

Hi Tom. I agree with most of your observations. I use the SAT III and I too
have been amazed that many pianos are in decent shape after a year. I did an
old junker cut-down Kimball upright more than two years ago - pitch raise
just over 100 cents, tune - the dude finally called me back two years later
and darn if that rascal wasn't right up to pitch - no pitch raise needed,
just tune it.

How long have you been tuning? (Please forgive me if you have been at it a
long time!) I am just into my fourth year of tuning, so I have just started
to be seeing a number of pianos for the second time. And yes, I am amazed
that so many will stay where you put them - or at least close. Some though
need that 5 or 10 cent pitch raise every time I tune. My own Boston GP178
has been a bit of a guinea pig for me. For like two years I tuned it every
month or two. After the first few tunings, it would always be within a two
cents (piano-friendly climate here in Florida, plus 200 watts of DC below
soundboard). I haven't tuned it since last November - 9 months. It needs a
tuning (I am picky), and I will tune it soon (yes Dear, I'll get to it right
away!), but it still is within a couple cents. Many unisons are still good.
Most octaves, etc. are really close or right on.

To address your specific question (IMHO), I think that a big-pitch raised
piano is LESS stable than a piano that has been tuned and stabilized at
pitch - although, the just-pitch-raised piano may well be more stable than
you would think. (Although I have not really presented much proof it seems.
Hmmm.) As to your other question, on whether an ETD negates the instability
issue, I can't see how. What is the final difference between getting a 50
cent flat piano within two cents of target on one pass with an ETD, and
getting it ready for a final pass with two or three passes using only aural
techniques. Actually, I would think perhaps the aural pitch raise would end
up more stable because there would be more passes, and hence a bit more
banging on the key, and thus more energy to stabilize the string tension in
all string segments.

I tell clients after a big pitch raise that often the piano will slide back
in pitch just a bit, and the piano MAY need a pitch raise next time.
Sometimes that will stay right there. Every piano is different. And in
general the tuning will tend to be less stable than a piano that has been
tuned regularly. I recommend tuning every six months for most pianos owners,
although many only tune once a year. Because we just did the pitch raise and
we want to train the piano up at standard pitch, I highly recommend that we
tune within six months. I'll send you a reminder card in six months, and if
I hear from you, we will schedule a tuning. If you do not call I will send
another reminder in a year. If you notice it going out of tune before the
six months, just give me a call and we will schedule a tuning.

----- Original Message -----
From: <Tvak@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 9:56 PM
Subject: stability of pitch raises


> I do all my pitch raises using RCT, so I end up very close to pitch after
the
> first pass.  If the piano is 50 cents flat or more, I have always warned
the
> client that a pitch-raised tuning is a less stable tuning, and that their
> piano may need another tuning in 3 or 4 months.   Rarely do they actually
> call me in 3 months.  Most often I come back in a year...OR TWO, and I am
> usually surprised at how well the piano has stayed in tune.  Not that the
> piano doesn't need a tuning, but it's tolerable enough that I can
understand
> why I haven't been called back sooner.  I suppose it's possible that the
> piano did all its drifting in the first 3 months, and just stayed there,
but
> I'm starting to wonder about the conventional wisdom that a pitch-raised
> tuning is less stable.
>
> Could it be that the use of the RCT negates the instability issue by
virtue
> of getting the piano so close to pitch after the first pass?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Tom Sivak