Thanks, Fred. I appreciate your comments. I just went ahead and tuned/checked/adjusted everything aurally. It was a 45" studio (Pearl River). I've never had that problem with the grands. Only the verticals! And the tuning pins were SOOOOOO tight!!!!!! Avery On 8/20/07, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote: > > Hi Avery, Yes, it was I. I generally defaulted to an 8 - 10 F number when > it was higher as read (I now use RCT). > I came to believe, based on things I had read and conversations I had had > (which I'm afraid are hazy at this point) that Al Sanderson had made a > change to the FAC calculations to give more stretch to the bass, in response > to criticism by people using the SAT for concert tuning. And I came to the > conclusion that it was a "patch" that didn't actually make any sense for > pianos with an inharmonicity profile that happened to have a plain wire, low > tension F3. (Note that the Hamilton 243 and the various flavors of Acrosonic > are essentially the same scale, somewhat foreshortened. But the smaller > Acrosonics happen to have wound strings for F3. Why should there be that > much difference in their tuning?) > In analyzing the numbers, I simply couldn't come up with a reason for the > portion of the tuning produced by the F number (it affects the bottom 2 1/2 > octaves, and only to a certain extent). It would make some sense if, say, F3 > were taken as the 6th partial of A#0 (extrapolate the 1st partial of F3, and > use it to create a curve as the next to lowest of the 6th partials tuned). > But it sure didn't seem to work that way. So I just started doing the > default thing, and found that the curve produced worked quite well most of > the time (I had found that with those larger numbers, I was constantly > needing to intervene and narrow the octaves). > I also always tuned the bass downwards (never started at A0) so that I > would know what was happening and be able to intervene. The simplest way of > "keeping and eye on things" was to play the notes a 5th and an octave above > the note to be tuned (from time to time, no necessarily every single one), > which would tell you how wide or narrow the 6:3 octave and the 6:4 5th would > be (before tuning the note itself - meaning its 6th partial). If the 6:3 was > going to be significantly wide (lights rotating sharp more than a bit), I'd > change the setting until, as I recall, the octave above made the lights > rotate just sharp, while the 5th made them rotate just flat. And then, of > course, the ear decided if the note was "right" once tuned (keeping in mind > that "right" is a vague notion on many of these beasts, with lots of > conflicting reasons to go one direction or the other). > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Avery Todd wrote: > > List, > > I have a question about high numbers on F on an SAT III. I tuned two Pearl > River UP 115's today (studio size) and one of them had an F number of 15.1and the other had > 14.9. I was getting way too much stretch as I went into the bass so I just > ended up tuning them aurally! > > I seem to remember that someone (Fred Sturm?) mentioned some time back > that he never uses a number higher than ?????. Am I correct? Or was it > someone else? Just wondering what others of you SAT users do in a case like > this. BTW, this is a VERY good reason why it's good to also be able to tune > aurally!!!!!!! :-) > > Avery Todd > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070820/ac1143e1/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC