From "Joe And Penny Goss" <imatunr@srvinet.com>
Hi David,
Ditto, that is why one must use checks, and know what to expect. And that comes through
eeexperiance using the tool. Note the long E <G> One other thing that I have found is that some pianos require less overpull than what the device uses. It almost seems like the shorter the piano the less overpull is needed. The old uprights are in the neighborhood of 12% bass bridge, 25% tenor bridge or to C 5, and 30% to the top. Shorter pianos require less so I would presume that a S&S D might need more. Especialy on a pitch raise or lowering that is mentioned at times on the list. I have never had the joy of tuning a large piano so do not really know.
Another idea that I look for but do not always find needed, is the change of stretch ala Vergil Smith at B5
I find that most times If the SAT lights are stopped on the high side of stopped ( I know that sounds wierd but there is a difference ) that is where the note agrees with tests to the 4, 5, and octave to be correct. If not then I change the stretch with the DOB shift.
Joe Goss RPT
Mother Goose Tools
imatunr@srvinet.com
www.mothergoosetools.com
----- Original Message -----
From: David Love
To: ilvey@sbcglobal.net ; 'Pianotech'
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:07 PM
Subject: RE: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores
That's interesting because I tune with an SAT and there are times when the FAC numbers do not produce a particularly good tuning in certain sections on certain pianos. The temperament is usually fine, but leaving the center octave, things can get strange. For example, I tuned an S&S D a couple of days ago. The FAC readings were something like 7.9, 9.9, 7.2. The upper middle of the piano had very audible beats in the octaves, quite disturbing really. Can't imagine that there wouldn't have been some deduction there. I couldn't really use the FAC numbers and feel good about what it produced. I did check the measurements on different strings on and around the target notes. I ended up using a default 8/7/6 setting and stretched the whole thing using the DOB and used that as a guideline. It actually worked pretty well, though I did the tuning largely aurally with the SAT as a guide. Moreover, I thought that while an FAC reading was taken initially on a test piano, a master tuning was created by consensus altering the tuning as needed. So, while I would expect that an SAT tuning might very well produce a passing score, that it would always produce a 100% score surprises me.
David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Ilvedson
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 7:39 PM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Re: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores
So I just checked with Michael Kimbell, our San Francisco CTE and tuning examiner and he concurred with my statement.
David Ilvedson
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original message
From: "Joe Garrett"
To: pianotech
Received: 9/12/2005 4:52:45 PM
Subject: Re: David Ilvedson/SAT Tuning Test Scores
David Ilvedson said: "Somewhat lack it may be but SAT III will always get a 100% score on PTG=
tuning test...not too bad a place to begin. Not the stability part of=
the test though...that's the tuner totally..."
David,
Where, pray tell, did you glean that Preposterous Idea! Not even! Check with Tuning Examiners, before you make such a wild claim! Please?<G>
Joe Garrett, R.P.T.
Captain, Tool Police
Squares R I