<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hey Joe,
<br>You are not alone in your feelings. Charlotte Eschmann (ex DC
chapter) in our chapter says she never goes above the pitch and just sneaks
up on it from below, but she is an aural tuner. She doesn't have
a SAT or V100 to compute what she needs to do to make a string arrive on
pitch correctly without guessing. The great majority of us, though,tune
to a computed sharp pitch which will drop very close to A440 when you complete
the pass. I noticed several people mentioned raising 100 cents flat
to 10 or 20 cents sharp the first pass. This I don't do. I would
bring the pitch up to -30 cents the first pass which would drop to
about -40 cents after the pass. Then I would set the pitch at +10
cents and do the second pass which will result in a pitch of 1 cent or
so sharp of A440. Again, I would do all the wound strings in the
bass and low tenor at +5 cents and the treble at +16 cents to put that
section a little sharp. The upper half of octave 7 doesn't drop off,
so I put the pitch back down to +10. See, there wasn't a single
"overshoot" in there anywhere! :-)
<p>When I started this this thread, I asked for ways to recover from a
stupid mistake. What I did to correct the problem worked poorly and took
more time than I expected it to. What I got was the assumption that
I didn't know how to do pitch raises when in fact I've done thousands of
them in the 27 years I've been tuning!
<p>When you change the pitch you are setting the strings in the <i>middle</i>
of a pitch raise, you can't just go through it again in the hope that it
will suddenly be better somehow. You have to figure out how much
the basic pitch of the piano has been altered by the mistake and try to
compensate for it on the next pass or you will be chasing your tail! What
I did was okay, but it two more passes to remove the glitches enough to
start on a good tuning.
<p>Joe, I have no idea where the journal you mentioned is. My office
was a mess before I left for 3 months. It's unreal now! I would
appreciate a copy of what you have if you have the time. No rush
required.
<p>Thanks,
<p>Warren
<br>
<p>Joseph Garrett wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Warren,
<br>You are partially correct. However, my system does not employ "over-shoots",
<br>(whatever that really is). To better understand it you need to read
the
<br>article. I would like to add that, through a process of trial and error
and
<br>string scale Breaking Strength calculations, thus is the basis for
my
<br>system. I don't believe the "over-shoots" theory is valid and is/can
be a
<br>greater source of breaking strings. I hate replacing strings, in the
field!
<br>I'm going to search my archives and see if I have a workable copy of
the
<br>article. If so, then I will be happy to send to any who are interested.
(It
<br>is much too long to post on the list. Besides, I have too many that
are
<br>"ticked" at me for whatever reason(s) in some of my previous posting(s).
I
<br>don't want to anger the "Gods" again. <G>
<br>Joe</blockquote>
<p>--
<br>Warren Fisher RPT
<br>fish@Communique.net
<br>1422 Briarwood Dr.
<br>Slidell, LA 70458-3102
<br> </html>