Dear List,
I thank Robert Scott for his work on this so far. I also must admit that I
have little experience using the FAC program. I have always hesitated to use
it because I have never trusted such a scheme in spite of what people have
said about it. Even the partial selection used is not good, in my opinion.
Often, the SAT can barely sense it so the lights flicker and getting a really
positive reading is difficult. I am much more used to using the partial
selection used for the PTG RPT Exam program which, in my opinion, uses a much
better and more logical partial selection.
It took me a good half hour to enter all of the "deviations of the
deviations". While I am aware that the SAT III makes this much easier,
that's no reason for me to spend $1600 for a program that I will never use
because I still don't trust it. I simply can't imagine going around tuning
pianos this way. My customers would be asking, "Is there anything wrong?"
and probably wouldn't trust my work either, thinking I would be "doing it all
by the numbers". I also can't imagine errors not being made doing this.
It's so confusing.
After tuning my own piano, a Walter Console to the calculated FAC program
with "Correction Figures", my first aural impression was that the results
only vaguely resembled what I actually do. On Friday, I had a similar
experience. Unfortunately, I only had school pianos to tune that day, they
were all Everett Studios. Now, I have read the resident Guru's opinion on
this, "Of course, if all you tune is JUNK,...". But this is the way I make
my living, taking care of the pianos in my community, in homes, schools and
churches. I don't go around condemning the pianos I work with, I render the
best service I can. I have always had the gut feeling that the FAC program
would be useless to me for doing this, and this experience, at least so far,
confirms this.
I just really wonder how well the "numbers method" really works for all of
the other people who have tried an HT this way, have been totally freaked out
by it and have gone back to the relative "safety" of what they consider to be
ET produced the same way. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't even waste my
time with any smooth curve calculation in spite of the fact that the guy who
thinks all common pianos are "JUNK" but at the same time would "stake [his]
professional reputation on it".
I already know that even if the FAC calculation worked for the temperament
octave, it wouldn't for the rest of the piano and my study confirms that too.
This, also in spite of the statement, again by the same person that my
"octaves don't make sense at all". Thank you, but I'll continue to tune my
octaves my OWN way. When I am shown an ETD program that can really duplicate
it, I'll say so, but I won't believe until I do.
Below are the figures from F2-F6 for the EBVT tuned on a new scaled (high
Inharmonicity) Walter console [not the older one which had Low
Inharmonicity]. It is the way I tune my own piano and I am completely
satisfied with the way it sounds. I invite many fine pianists to my home and
all are amazed that such music can come from such a modest little piano.
This material has never been and is not now copyrighted. Anyone is welcome
to record and try my figures. Just be sure you are putting them on the newer
Walter, not the older one.
The FAC derived tuning was scored against the custom program for comparison.
The Temperament Octave scored a mediocre 85, the Midrange, a dismal 82, the
bass, (as far as it goes), a 91 and the treble (but not the high treble) a
92. I tend to tune my low Bass flatter than most people and my High Treble
sharper than most. Take it as a given that my figures for both are quite
different from what the FAC program provides.
If you wish to program any ETD to tune the piano the way I do, you must
follow the partial selection carefully or your results will be very
inaccurate. I use the same partial selection as the PTG RPT Exam, not the
default selection that the SAT offers.
The program from F2-F6:
EBVT EBVT/FAC(?)
F2 (read on) C5: 3.0 2.0
F#2 (read on) C#5: -1.5 -3.7
G2 (read on) D5: 4.0 2.5
G#2 (read on) D#5: 4.0 0.9
A2 (read on) E5: 1.0 -1.2
A#2 (read on) F5: 3.0 0.9
B2 (read on) F#5: 3.0 0.3
Change partial selection from G5 to C5 here.
C3 (read on) C5: 3.0 1.6
C#3 (read on) C#5: -1.0 -2.5
D3 (read on) D5: 0.0 -1.5
D#3 (read on) D#5: 2.0 -0.7
E3 (read on) E5: -1.0 -3.3
F3 (read on) F5: 1.5 1.1
F#3 (read on) F#5: -1.5 -3.0
G3 (read on) G5: 5.0 2.8
G#3 (read on) G#5: 3.5 1.6
A3 (read on) A5: 0.0 -0.5
A#3 (read on) A#5: 1.5 1.5
B3 (read on) B5: 3.0 1.1
Change partial selection from C6 to C5 here.
C4 (read on) C#5: 3.0 6.4
C#4 (read on) C#5: -0.5 2.5
D4 (read on) D5: 0.0 3.8
D#4 (read on) D#5: 1.0 4.8
E4 (read on) E5: -2.0 2.4
F (read on) F5: 2.0 7.1
F#4 (read on) F#5: -1.0 3.4
G4 (read on) G5: 6.0 10.4
G#4 (read on) G#5: 4.0 8.8
A4 (read on) A5: 1.5 7.3
A#4 (read on) A#5: 2.0 9.7
B4 (read on) B5: 4.0 9.8
Change partial selection from C6 to C5 here.
C5 (read on) C5: 5.0 6.4
C#5 (read on) C#5: 0.0 2.5
D5 (read on) D5: 4.0 3.6
D#5 (read on) D#5: 3.0 4.5
E5 (read on) E5: 2.0 1.9
F5 (read on) F5: 4.0 6.6
F#5 (read on) F#5: 2.0 2.7
G5 (read on) G5: 9.0 9.2
G#5 (read on) G#5: 3.5 8.0
A5 (read on) A5: 4.0 6.3
A#5 (read on) A#5: 5.0 8.7
B5 (read on) B5: 5.0 8.7
The partial selection will automatically set to C6 here.
C6 (read on) C6: 10.0 7.3
C#6 (read on) C#6: 4.5 3.3
D6 (read on) D6: 8.0 4.5
D#6 (read on) D#6: 8.0 5.3
E6 (read on) E6: 7.0 3.0
F6 (read on) F6: 9.0 7.6
Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC