Togetherness

[Michael Jorgensen]

Hi John,
     IMHO, tune the piano with higher inharmonicity first using"natural
stretch" as some refer to it.  (i.e, all 10ths and 17ths beating the same
speed). or choose a low stretch number on an ETD and/or average them.   The
lower inharmonicity piano will not have to be stretched so far to match, (only
generally true though as inharmonicity varies for each note, so expect to
"fudge")  The bass will never match with good unisons but the trebles likely
can.  It's wise to educate your customer explaining reasons for that
limitation.  Test the pianos by playing simultaneous chormatic scales on both.

     Of related note, for many years piano faculty had one Yamaha 6' G3 and
Baldwin 6'3" L in each studio side by side.   I found that tuning aurally the
L first and copying the tuning on the Yamaha resulted in a smooth equal
tempered soundingYamaha.  Duplicating a smooth sounding G3 temperament almost
always resulted in  "reverse well" or some other uneven concoction on the L.
Go figure!  IMHO there exists a greater margin for error allowable on the G3
than on the L, which could explain why G3s are seemingly easier to set a
temperament on.  Thankfully now we have identical instruments in piano
studios.

Good luck
-Mike Jorgensen


JPIESIK wrote:

>      I've got a good instructor/client with a 1917 Sohmer 5ft 7in grand and
>      a '70s Baldwin SD-10 in her studio. She always wants the two tuned to
>      each other for obvious reasons, but I keep telling her that the best I
>      can do is have them both at the same pitch, and beyond that, the
>      pianos are just too different to tune exactly to each other. Then I
>      started thinking, maybe there is a compromise, in between, that would
>      allow me to do this. Is this possible? How would I determine the
>      compromise? She's rather picky - would she be happy with the result?
>      Where does the line get drawn as to which pianos (style, make, model,
>      size, etc.) can be exactly tuned to each other? I use an SAT, and
>      maybe I could play around with the FAC numbers to reach the
>      compromise.
>
>      Thanks in advance,
>
>      John Piesik, RPT
>      Oceanside, CA