This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi David, Ditto, that is why one must use checks, and know what to expect. And = that comes through=20 eeexperiance using the tool. Note the long E <G> One other thing that I = have found is that some pianos require less overpull than what the = device uses. It almost seems like the shorter the piano the less = overpull is needed. The old uprights are in the neighborhood of 12% bass = bridge, 25% tenor bridge or to C 5, and 30% to the top. Shorter pianos = require less so I would presume that a S&S D might need more. Especialy = on a pitch raise or lowering that is mentioned at times on the list. I = have never had the joy of tuning a large piano so do not really know. Another idea that I look for but do not always find needed, is the = change of stretch ala Vergil Smith at B5 I find that most times If the SAT lights are stopped on the high side of = stopped ( I know that sounds wierd but there is a difference ) that is = where the note agrees with tests to the 4, 5, and octave to be correct. = If not then I change the stretch with the DOB shift. Joe Goss RPT Mother Goose Tools imatunr@srvinet.com www.mothergoosetools.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David Love=20 To: ilvey@sbcglobal.net ; 'Pianotech'=20 Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:07 PM Subject: RE: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores That's interesting because I tune with an SAT and there are times when = the FAC numbers do not produce a particularly good tuning in certain = sections on certain pianos. The temperament is usually fine, but = leaving the center octave, things can get strange. For example, I tuned = an S&S D a couple of days ago. The FAC readings were something like = 7.9, 9.9, 7.2. The upper middle of the piano had very audible beats in = the octaves, quite disturbing really. Can't imagine that there wouldn't = have been some deduction there. I couldn't really use the FAC numbers = and feel good about what it produced. I did check the measurements on = different strings on and around the target notes. I ended up using a = default 8/7/6 setting and stretched the whole thing using the DOB and = used that as a guideline. It actually worked pretty well, though I did = the tuning largely aurally with the SAT as a guide. Moreover, I = thought that while an FAC reading was taken initially on a test piano, a = master tuning was created by consensus altering the tuning as needed. = So, while I would expect that an SAT tuning might very well produce a = passing score, that it would always produce a 100% score surprises me. =20 David Love davidlovepianos@comcast.net=20 -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On = Behalf Of David Ilvedson Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:39 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores So I just checked with Michael Kimbell, our San Francisco CTE and = tuning examiner and he concurred with my statement. =20 David Ilvedson -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Original message From: "Joe Garrett"=20 To: pianotech=20 Received: 9/12/2005 4:52:45 PM Subject: Re: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores David Ilvedson said: "Somewhat lack it may be but SAT III will always = get a 100% score on PTG=3D tuning test...not too bad a place to begin. Not the stability part = of=3D the test though...that's the tuner totally..." David, Where, pray tell, did you glean that Preposterous Idea! Not even! = Check with Tuning Examiners, before you make such a wild claim! = Please?<G> Joe Garrett, R.P.T. Captain, Tool Police Squares R I ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/89/06/06/48/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC