<div>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!!!!!! </div> <div> </div> <div>Avery <br><br> </div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/20/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Fred Sturm</b> <<a href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> <div style="WORD-WRAP: break-word">Hi Avery, <div><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"></span>Yes, it was I. I generally defaulted to an 8 - 10 F number when it was higher as read (I now use RCT). </div> <div><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"></span>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?) </div> <div><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"></span>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). </div> <div><span style="WHITE-SPACE: pre"></span>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). <br> <div><span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px"><span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px"> <div>Regards,</div> <div>Fred Sturm</div> <div>University of New Mexico</div> <div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu" target="_blank">fssturm@unm.edu</a></div> <div><br> </div><br></span></span></div><br> <div> <div>On Aug 17, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Avery Todd wrote:</div><br> <blockquote type="cite"> <div>List, </div> <div> </div> <div>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 15.1 and 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! </div> <div> </div> <div>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!!!!!!! :-) </div> <div> </div> <div>Avery Todd</div></blockquote></div><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br>