[CAUT] Harpsichord tuning tips/string setting

[Don McKechnie]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Ron & Fred,

It certainly is what one is used to doing and how we each approach the 
setting of the individual string/pin. We have been setting those 
strings/pins our own way (or the way we were taught) for a long time. 
Sometimes you can't teach an old dog new tricks! :-)

Don

Subject:
Re: [CAUT] Harpsichord tuning tips/string setting
From:
Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net>
Date:
Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:12:29 -0600

To:
College and University Technicians <caut@ptg.org>


Fred Sturm wrote:

> On 12/3/05 10:47 AM, "Don McKechnie" <dmckech@ithaca.edu> wrote:
>
>     Mike and Fred,
>
>     Some years ago I had some one on one instruction from Bill Dowd on
>     regulating, tuning and voicing. Bill was of the same opinion as
>     Mike's harpsichordist. For the most part, that is how I have tuned
>     ever since. It does not always work with certain pins, certain
>     instruments. One just has to adjust some times. I believe Bill
>     Garlick was in favor of this method as well but he got a good bit of
>     his training from Dowd. BTW, I can't see how people can use the
>     gooseneck to tune a harpsichord. :-) Bill & Bill were in favor of
>     the T handle as well.
>
>     Don
>
> Hi Don,
>     Yes, I am very aware that these opinions are widespread among the 
> harpsichord community, and rise from very authoritative sources. Being 
> one of those ornery people who can't seem to accept what an 
> authoritative source says without having personally verified it, I 
> choose to disagree based on my own experience, which is reasonably 
> extensive.
>     In the end, it comes down to doing what works for you. I can tune 
> a harpsichord with square headed pins five or six minutes faster, and 
> with less concentration and effort, using a gooseneck rather than a T 
> hammer. If it has a four foot, I'd make that 10 to 15 minutes faster. 
> I just find the T hammer more frustrating to use for minute turns. 
> It's easier to do a controlled push or pull motion with the fingers at 
> a greater leverage advantage than it is to do a twist of the wrist. 
> For me, anyway.
>     As for the pull up to pitch notion, I don't think it has any more 
> validity than the notion that one has to do the same with a piano. 
> There is an old school of thought that incorporates so-called "pin 
> setting" with overall hammer technique: "pull it sharp a bit, then 
> settle the pin back." This can be a very effective automatic physical 
> technique for achieving a stable tuning. But it is also quite possible 
> to move a string to pitch and stability by other means. For instance, 
> one can turn the pin in the block in such a way that the string 
> doesn't come quite to pitch (from either direction), by having the 
> lever at an angle that doesn't flagpole/twist the pin in the direction 
> you are moving pitch,  and then pull the string through the bearing 
> friction points using jerking/flagpoling/twisting action and set it at 
> dead stable. It all depends on the minutia of your hammer technique, 
> and there are infinite variables available.
>     In the end, on harpsichord or piano, one must move the pin in the 
> block the precise amount needed, and, separately or at the same time, 
> stabilize the string and pin. A technique that does all at the same 
> time can be the most efficient, and "pull from below" is probably 
> intended in that light - and it will work assuming your hammer 
> technique is correct, accounting for any flagpoling and twist 
> (sometimes you find harpsichords with tight enough blocks that this is 
> a real issue). But, as I wrote in my earlier post, if you are above 
> pitch to begin with, it is just as possible to move directly down to 
> stable pitch, with the same variables in play.
>     So the "pull from below" advice might make for a good set of 
> automatic motions to learn, but it doesn't really have an absolute 
> physical validity, IMO.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico



Authoritative sources aside, I personally tune harpsichords just like I 
tune pianos, except for test blows for settling in. I pull them up or 
drop them down to pitch, as usual, then alternately turn and jiggle the 
pin back and forth to find the point where it will be most likely to 
stay where I leave it - then leave it. I don't have a template. I don't 
have a checklist. I don't have a conditional set of programmed movements 
I use in each of a specific number of defined circumstances. I attempt 
to read what each and every pin and string it telling me and leave it in 
the most stable condition I can from the information it gives me. It 
makes life simpler. There is only one infinitely variable hammer 
technique - whatever the feedback tells me is working to my 
satisfaction, and my tunings are more stable than most, if not as shiny 
as some. I've always considered this to be a no-brainer. As I listen and 
read about the near infinitely detailed absolute conditional techniques 
for dealing with each narrowly, but nebulously defined contingent, I am 
always baffled that the tuning lever operator didn't immediately give up 
the ego, attempting to force it into a, arbitrary proprietary category, 
and just adjust as necessary to make it work as the physical reality 
requires. I find that the "technique" changes from pin to pin, as well 
as from piano to piano to harpsichord to guitar to whatever, and in my 
opinion, if the tuner isn't able to recalibrate automatically, 
mindlessly, and effortlessly on the fly (or Denro), on a moment by 
moment basis, he's just pretending.

But what do I know?

Ron N


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/e4/fb/8b/e2/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--