Changing Inharmonicity

[Newton Hunt]

Hi David,

It was my practice, when I had 145 pianos to care for, to write or tag
the piano with the best set of numbers I got for it.  This way, if I got
numbers I didn't like I would use the old numbers, or if I got what I
thought were better numbers than the old I would change them.  I always
used felt pens with water soluble ink.

In the case of having two pianos in the same room I would average the
two set of values.  As I listened to the two pianos after tuning I might
adjust the values so that next time I would, hopefully, get a better
tuning.

Bear in mind that all this number stuff was in an effort to get an ever
so better a tuning for all the pianos in my care.  This was a game I was
playing for my benefit, the differences in terms of what the piano would
sound like would be imperceptible by the customer, performer, teacher,
practiceroom user or private customer.

I have always, for 35 years, tried for that extra little edge.  Even
being the dirty old man I am I can learn a new trick or two.

As for the importance of the 8th partial of F3, it is the value the SAT
I and II use for it's calculation.  No real value to us persons but of
value to the calculations.

Have a nice scary evening!

		Newton

David Love wrote:
> 
> Well that sort of begs the question.  If the piano doesn't tune as nicely
> with the less than ideal numbers (8, 9.5, 6), why not tune it with the
> original numbers?  Would it sound worse yet?  There have been times when I
> have encountered a smallish piano with inharmonicity numbers not in a
> straight line (very high F readings e.g.) that I have experimented by simply
> using default setting on the SATIII (which is 8, 7, 6), make a small
> modification with the DOB as necessary and plow ahead.  To be honest, the
> tuning worked out pretty well.  Certainly no worse than I would have gotten
> using the actual numbers--or at least so it seemed.  How important is the
> 8th partial (quadruple octave if I remember me partials correctly) of F3 in
> the practical application of a tuning anyway.  Have others experimented with
> using so called "ideal" numbers on a piano whose FAC numbers might have
> shown something different?  What have you found?
> 
> David Love
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Newton Hunt" <nhunt@optonline.net>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: October 30, 2001 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Chaning Inharmonicity
> 
> > An optimum set of values would be a straight line, like 8, 7 and 6 or
> > 7,7,7 or some such.  I like to see a straight line but C6 no higher than
> > 5 but that is rare.  Now one "D" I had was 7,6,5, real nice numbers but
> > it rose to 8,9.5,6 and it didn't tune quite as nicely as the previous
> > numbers.