Pitch Raising Techniques

[Richard Brekne]

Agreed Terry.

As with so many of these kinds of discussions, a more precise 
clarification of terms clears up most of the apparent difference in 
views. In this case, what one means by overpull.  For my own part, I 
simply dont like the idea of tuning the first pass higher then  442. Nor 
do I see the need to stress the instrument thus. I'll be the first to 
admit I have no hard data or science to back up this feeling. It just 
doesnt  seem to me to be a good idea, especially when its  simply not 
necessary to get a good stable tuning at pitch in a very reasonable 
amount of time.

Cheers
RicB

Farrell wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Actually, you can usually get a 100 cent flat piano at 440 pitch within
>>3-4 passes and never go above 442 to do it. I suppose you can call that
>>overpull, but thats not what folks normally mean when they use the term.
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed. I would call that about 8 cents overpull (or 8% for a half-step-flat
>piano) in the mid-section of the piano! And actually, with that amount of
>overpull, you might be about 18 cents flat in the middle of the piano after
>the first pass, so maybe only a 5-cent overpull on a second pass would be
>required to get up to 440! You shouldn't need the extra two passes (well,
>maybe one more pass in the high treble if you are only going 8 cents sharp).
>
>That's what overpull is - tuning a string a calculated amount sharp to
>achieve a targeted pitch. That's what I call overpull. So what do folks
>normally mean when they use the term?
>
>I don't care if it's one or two cents overpull - if you are doing it to get
>the piano to end up at a certain pitch, then those one or two cents are
>overpull.
>
>At least in my book.    :-)
>
>Terry Farrell
>  
>