Pianotech

How far out was the piano to begin with? I'm regularly performing second tuning after pitch raise using Pianoscope (balance setting). I consistently see the bass needing more work than tenor/treble.  I've started overpulling farther than its recommended point in bass. 

Regarding, Pianoscope final placement and if you don't like where results are compared to aural checks then you can try different style to see if that's better or reach out to Frank at Pianoscope and pose the question  

Michael

------------------------------
Michael Pitts
Fishers IN
Indianapolis, IN Chapter
------------------------------

I've been using Pianoscope for about 2 years, previously I also used an Accutuner.  The pitch raise feature in Pianoscope on large pitch raises doesn't seem to work so well (more than 20 cents), but less than that seems to work quite well.  When using the pitch raise, I'll select a max 25% over the default 20%.  If you use the pitch raise feature, be sure to look at the overpull on the graph before you begin.  Sometimes I see major errors on the graph where the software measured a different note and threw the calculation way off.  I will sometimes resample notes that appear off just to make sure they are correct.  If you're not using the pitch raise, and the piano is more than 5% off, you'll not end up close to where you need to be.  On some pianos that are around 5 cents off, I'll use the pitch raise anyway, and it comes out just fine.  I also use the freeze line, which makes the tuning even better.

I've been using Pianoscope for about 2 years, previously I also used an Accutuner.  The pitch raise feature in Pianoscope on large pitch raises doesn't seem to work so well (more than 20 cents), but less than that seems to work quite well.  When using the pitch raise, I'll select a max 25% over the default 20%.  If you use the pitch raise feature, be sure to look at the overpull on the graph before you begin.  Sometimes I see major errors on the graph where the software measured a different note and threw the calculation way off.  I will sometimes resample notes that appear off just to make sure they are correct.  If you're not using the pitch raise, and the piano is more than 5% off, you'll not end up close to where you need to be.  On some pianos that are around 5 cents off, I'll use the pitch raise anyway, and it comes out just fine.  I also use the freeze line, which makes the tuning even better.

Hi Paul,

I would occasionally notice a small error with my SAT on a note or two, but on this GH-1, the entire bass section was off.  Never noticed that large an error with my SAT, or even with other pianos using PianoScope.   

I've been using Pianoscope for about 2 years, previously I also used an Accutuner.  The pitch raise feature in Pianoscope on large pitch raises doesn't seem to work so well (more than 20 cents), but less than that seems to work quite well.  When using the pitch raise, I'll select a max 25% over the default 20%.  If you use the pitch raise feature, be sure to look at the overpull on the graph before you begin.  Sometimes I see major errors on the graph where the software measured a different note and threw the calculation way off.  I will sometimes resample notes that appear off just to make sure they are correct.  If you're not using the pitch raise, and the piano is more than 5% off, you'll not end up close to where you need to be.  On some pianos that are around 5 cents off, I'll use the pitch raise anyway, and it comes out just fine.  I also use the freeze line, which makes the tuning even better.

When was the last time you've turned off you our device? Has it's software been updated?

When was the last time you've turned off you our device? Has it's software been updated?

Dear Timothy,

it might be a problem with the inharmonicity measurement or a bug in pianoscope. if you still have the tuning document for the GH-1, please send it to support@pianoscope.app so that I can take a look at it. I

Frank Illenberger

Apropos of the discussion, yesterday I "tuned" a 2001 Yamaha GA-1. 

There seemed to be no compromise in the wound strings that would yield any kind of decent octaves and 5ths at the same time, either with Verituner or aurally. I've tuned many of the other smaller Yamahas but never had one this bad in the bass.

Has anyone else had issues tuning the bass in the GA-1?

Dear Timothy,

it might be a problem with the inharmonicity measurement or a bug in pianoscope. if you still have the tuning document for the GH-1, please send it to support@pianoscope.app so that I can take a look at it. I

Frank Illenberger

I spent a week at Yamaha last year and the way they wanted their pianos tuned is very different than the way I usually tune.

They said that only their largest pianos can take a 6:3 octave. All of their smaller pianos need at most a 4:2 or 2:1 octave. The way they described it, was to stretch the octave as wide as possible without having a beat in the fundamental.

The upper partials in the bass were noisy to me. But overall the pianos sounded more dynamic.

It is worth trying.

Apropos of the discussion, yesterday I "tuned" a 2001 Yamaha GA-1. 

There seemed to be no compromise in the wound strings that would yield any kind of decent octaves and 5ths at the same time, either with Verituner or aurally. I've tuned many of the other smaller Yamahas but never had one this bad in the bass.

Has anyone else had issues tuning the bass in the GA-1?

I spent a week at Yamaha last year and the way they wanted their pianos tuned is very different than the way I usually tune.

They said that only their largest pianos can take a 6:3 octave. All of their smaller pianos need at most a 4:2 or 2:1 octave. The way they described it, was to stretch the octave as wide as possible without having a beat in the fundamental.

The upper partials in the bass were noisy to me. But overall the pianos sounded more dynamic.

It is worth trying.

Apropos of the discussion, yesterday I "tuned" a 2001 Yamaha GA-1. 

There seemed to be no compromise in the wound strings that would yield any kind of decent octaves and 5ths at the same time, either with Verituner or aurally. I've tuned many of the other smaller Yamahas but never had one this bad in the bass.

Has anyone else had issues tuning the bass in the GA-1?

Timothy sent me the file, and I was able to analyze it. As far as I can tell, the excessive bass stretch comes from a combination of two factors: the very poor scaling and string quality of this particular instrument, and the way pianoscope models inharmonicity in the default setting. Since this might affect other users as well, I've just posted a short article about it in the pianoscope forum.

Timothy sent me the file, and I was able to analyze it. As far as I can tell, the excessive bass stretch comes from a combination of two factors: the very poor scaling and string quality of this particular instrument, and the way pianoscope models inharmonicity in the default setting. Since this might affect other users as well, I've just posted a short article about it in the pianoscope forum.

Thanks Frank

Dealing with challenging scales always presents interesting puzzles. For that reason, I've always tried to do what I can to give tuning apps the best data available, even if that means taking a bit more time to measure. Glad to see you will be looking to a more automatic solution to the problem shared by many other scale designs. 

Ron Koval

Timothy sent me the file, and I was able to analyze it. As far as I can tell, the excessive bass stretch comes from a combination of two factors: the very poor scaling and string quality of this particular instrument, and the way pianoscope models inharmonicity in the default setting. Since this might affect other users as well, I've just posted a short article about it in the pianoscope forum.

Hi Timothy (and others who have struggled tuning these little Yamahas)

Yes, they are a mess to tune - above that hockey stick curve in the graph not so bad...

I was able to use strings ordered from J.D. Grandt - he has a rescale from Tremaine Parsons to replace the lowest 6 unisons above the break with wound doubles.(see Frank's article to view the current graph - one of the benefits of using the newer apps that display the graphs)  Completely reversible since just the outer holes in the existing agraffes are used. No changes to hitch pins. Dampers fit perfectly without adjustment. It straightens out the graph for a much better blend and best of all makes the piano tuneable and more stable through the seasons. Reasonably priced and just took a few hours of my time. 

Ron Koval

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Timothy (and others who have struggled tuning these little Yamahas)

Yes, they are a mess to tune - above that hockey stick curve in the graph not so bad...

I was able to use strings ordered from J.D. Grandt - he has a rescale from Tremaine Parsons to replace the lowest 6 unisons above the break with wound doubles.(see Frank's article to view the current graph - one of the benefits of using the newer apps that display the graphs)  Completely reversible since just the outer holes in the existing agraffes are used. No changes to hitch pins. Dampers fit perfectly without adjustment. It straightens out the graph for a much better blend and best of all makes the piano tuneable and more stable through the seasons. Reasonably priced and just took a few hours of my time. 

Ron Koval

La Roy Edwards shared this marketing sentiment at Little Red Schoolhouse around 2003. I have been told that very early GH1 had bichords in the low tenor and when they were removed and changed to plain wire there were so many complaints that Yamaha actually had a bichord retrofit kit for GH1 plain wire versions though I was never able to absolutely confirm this. The below picture is a early GH1 and I just noticed that the bichord agraffes look newer which makes me wonder if we are looking at an installed early GH1 retrofit. Unfortunate that the picture cuts out the serial number and the ability to confirm that there are/were 3 tuning pins for each bichord.note.

The other interesting thing about the GA1 is that I believe it was a transition model the the next Gen GB1 which mostly corrected the Inh/Ten problem with 5 bichords. The reason I think this is that the bridge layout / speaking lengths of the GA1 are the same at the corrected GB1 which resulted in worse Inh/Ten but manufacturing was all set for the newer GB1 save for the plate re-design. I have also attache a GA1 Retrofit White Paper with discussion and dealing with hitchpins.

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi Timothy (and others who have struggled tuning these little Yamahas)

Yes, they are a mess to tune - above that hockey stick curve in the graph not so bad...

I was able to use strings ordered from J.D. Grandt - he has a rescale from Tremaine Parsons to replace the lowest 6 unisons above the break with wound doubles.(see Frank's article to view the current graph - one of the benefits of using the newer apps that display the graphs)  Completely reversible since just the outer holes in the existing agraffes are used. No changes to hitch pins. Dampers fit perfectly without adjustment. It straightens out the graph for a much better blend and best of all makes the piano tuneable and more stable through the seasons. Reasonably priced and just took a few hours of my time. 

Ron Koval

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Nothing more than idle speculation on my part as well...but sometimes the marketing dept actually caves to the design dept (though not on a regular basis). Took 20 years for SS to see the light on Teflon (just sayin...)

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

It was a personal connection who happened to work for a company in Long Island working with the then new Teflon that got  that started.

Nothing more than idle speculation on my part as well...but sometimes the marketing dept actually caves to the design dept (though not on a regular basis). Took 20 years for SS to see the light on Teflon (just sayin...)

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

One often wonders why Yamaha would allow such anomalies. I won't mention names, but years ago when a tech rescaled the GH-1 using bichords in this way (this was before rescaling was really "a thing"), and made such a significant improvement in the piano that he got on the phone to Yamaha service and questioned them as to why they didn't do this themselves (it was not that difficult). The response floored him: "Don't you think we know this? We know how to build pianos...do you think we "goofed" and didn't know any better?  We have to make a significant enough difference in the low-end models so as to give reason enough to upgrade to a more expensive model. If we make this one as good as possible, they will stay with it and never buy a better piano..."

 (I'm of course generalizing in the above...not exact words but the essence of the conversation.

This simply exhibits the difference in the mindset of the manufacturer vs the mindset of the "technician" in the field (us) who thinks that the manufacturer should always pull out all the stops to make things as good as possible...regardless.  Well, it doesn't work that way in the real world, as we so often find out.

Just something to chew on...

Peter Grey Piano Doctor