I love hearing good information from intelligent people. I even hope to learn from foolish people. I always hope to improve my craft and serve my customers better.
I find it foolish (and rude!) for someone to tell me I cannot possibly do what I have done for twenty-seven years, because they know better.
If a person wishes to ask how someone else accomplishes something they consider difficult, I would consider that person wise.
I do believe in science for science sake, but what I really want is to see how it applies in the real world. In other words, at a certain level I don't care if it is the roll of the bridge, the compression (or not) of the soundboard, the plate, the back, or the phase of the moon. Using RCT, I can measure the movement of the pitch as I tune, and how far off it is when I finish a pitch raise, and thereby the movement within the entire system of the piano. I would like to know which component is moving, but I don't have to know to get reliable results. If I can use RCT and leave the piano at pitch and it stays there for months or years, I will take someone's money and sleep peacefully.
Dave Stocker, RPT
Tumwater, WA
From: David Love
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 21:33
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
I don't agree. The discussion is diverged into two areas. 1) Is tuning stability achievable in this situation and why or why not? 2) How should that be communicated (if at all) to the customer? It outlines a common situation for all of us and I'm sure everyone has their own way of dealing with it. Obviously, however, those who began the thread with a legitimate question had some questions about both. Thus the discussion. There's nothing wrong with having a strong opinion and expressing it in a give and take discussion. Happens all the time. I see nothing going on here that's rude or belligerent.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Gerald Groot
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 9:23 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
It's turning more into an ego---who knows more--- who can win this discussion tham a problem solving discussion.
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:08 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
In a message dated 8/28/2009 11:06:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tunerboy3 at comcast.net writes:
Well, all you guys are doing is going back and forth trying to win something
that none of you is willing to concede on except asking questions to avoid
answers... Or, at least one of you is anyway....
Win is knowledge, not ego. You're talking to yourself, maybe.
P
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Love
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:44 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
If it's boring to you don't read it. For those questioning policy with
customers regarding pitch raises and the necessity for follow up
appointments it has relevance.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Gerald Groot
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:41 PM
To: 'David Ilvedson'; pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
Agreed.
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of David Ilvedson
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 10:48 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
Zzzzzz........................
David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA 94044
----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Received: 8/28/2009 1:24:39 PM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] PR follow up
>In a message dated 8/28/2009 7:14:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>rnossaman at cox.net writes:
>Well, nobody asked, but in case at least that many care - in
>my world, David's got it right.
>Well, Ron, nobody did, but David has a perspective, as do you, which is not
> "right" but self-informed, and so also not "wrong".
>I see no reason, presuming the
>piano's tunable in the first place, that it can't be left in
>an acceptable
>So, "acceptable" = "adequate" or "fine"? Which is it?
>
>Do these words mean nothing? Is there no distinction?
>
>state of tune after a pitch raise. If, during
>the process, every realistic effort is made to pound the slack
>out of the back scale, followed by a real attempt to leave a
>stable string as you typically would, there's no reason you
>shouldn't end up with a piano as in tune as if you hadn't done
>a pitch raise.
>Can you substitute the word "stable" in place of "in tune" and make the
>same flat claim? (no pun intended)
>
>
>I agree with everything else you say, but I don't know what kind of tuning
>you are describing.
>
>Cheers,
>
>P
>That's the de-fuzzifier. You can leave the
>piano reflecting your typical standard of tuning after even a
>substantial pitch raise. How long it will stay that way
>depends mostly, in my experience, on how well you were able to
>equalize segment tensions on both sides of the bridges. Some
>techs have no conception of this, and some are fairly good at
>it. I've done half-to-full semitone pitch raises, with
>instructions to call for another tuning when it becomes
>obvious it's needed, and tuned the piano two years later no
>more off pitch than a stable piano tuned six months ago. I've
>also had them quite rough in a month, indicating I hadn't
>gotten segment tensions equalized as I had tried, even though
>the piano was in good tune when I left. I think two weeks is
>rushing it some for the follow up. A month is more reasonable
>to me, or when it sounds like it needs it. But that's my call.
>So, as usual, it depends.
>Ron N
_____
avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090828-0, 08/28/2009
Tested on: 8/28/2009 11:41:01 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
_____
avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090828-0, 08/28/2009
Tested on: 8/29/2009 12:06:29 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 090828-0, 08/28/2009
Tested on: 8/29/2009 12:23:00 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20090828/bf8f0bba/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC