post pitch-raise creep?

[Andrew and Rebeca Anderson]

Dittos here,
YMMV but for me it works to spend more time getting the pins solid 
during the pitch correction.  Barring a structural problem, I get a 
lot of freebies during the fine tuning.

Andrew

At 04:39 PM 7/9/2006, you wrote:

>It's interesting to hear someone else talk about
>spending more time in the pitch raise sometimes than
>in the final pass.  I have also found that sometime I
>can get through the final pass faster than the pitch
>raise if I am fairly careful doing the pitch raise/or
>pitch lowering.
>My pin setting during the pr is basically just going
>slightly above the pitch I want, and making sure I
>feel the bottom of the pin move in the block, and then
>easing it back down to the desired pitch.
>
>I am experimenting between fast and sloppier pitch
>raises versus careful ones to see which I really like
>best in terms of time and final accuracy.
>
>Bob Hull
>
>
>
>
>
>--- "pmc033 at earthlink.net" <pmc033 at earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
> > David:
> >     Since different techs use different pin setting
> > techniques, it's hard to say exactly how much over
> > pull will work for every situation.  During the last
> > few weeks, there was a discussion of overpull
> > percentages with RCT users.  Some had to adjust the
> > overpull because their pianos were coming out too
> > sharp using the default percentages.
> >     For years, I had been using my SAT for pitch
> > raises using the single string method described in
> > the SAT manual.  That is, doing the unisons at the
> > end.  I would pull the bass 25%, and mentally
> > calculate the rest of the string overpull at 30%.  I
> > would carefully set the pins as close as I could.
> > After pulling the unisons in, I would end up sharp
> > in the low tenor, less sharp in the rest of the
> > tenor section, and the treble came out ok.  I used
> > to reduce the overpull in the tenor accordingly
> > (lots of mental gymnastics here).  It seemed to work
> > for me.
> >     Then, I got the Pocket RCT, and began doing
> > unisons as I went along.  I found that doing this
> > produced a more accurate result.  After a few months
> > of PRCT, I went back to my SAT and began using the
> > string by string method.  The result was that my SAT
> > pitch raises began to come out much closer to pitch
> > than before.  Since the SAT has a default 25%
> > automatic overpull, I use that in the bass.  In the
> > low tenor, I use 25% also, maybe adding a few cents
> > more (maybe closer to 28% overall).  Starting in the
> > treble, I go back to 30% for the rest of the
> > strings.
> >     I spend much more time in the pitch raise than
> > the final pass because I find that the result is
> > much closer if I do that.  If I spend less time on
> > the pitch raise, not being as careful, I have to
> > spend more time on the final pass.  I do set the
> > pins  while pitch raising.
> >     Doing the unisons string by string may seem
> > tedious (which is why I resisted doing so for
> > years), but the result is more accurate in my
> > experience.  YMMV.
> >     Just my $.02.
> >
> >     Paul McCloud
> >     San Diego
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Nereson
> > To: Pianotech List
> > Sent: 07/09/2006 4:58:54 AM
> > Subject: RE: post pitch-raise creep?
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org
> > [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org]On Behalf Of
> > Farrell
> > Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:04 AM
> > To: Pianotech List
> > Subject: Re: post pitch-raise creep?
> >
> >
> > Doesn't sound right. When doing the PR, are you
> > using an ETD?
> >
> > Only to measure the amount it's flat and to tune the
> > initial A4 sharp by 40% of the amount it was flat.
> >
> >  Unisons as you go?
> >
> > No.  All the middle strings, then all the unisons,
> > then the bass, which sometimes needs very little
> > raising.  I can do it fastest that way.
> >
> >  41% is very large percentage for overpull. Most
> > ETDs recommend between 20% and 35%, depending on the
> > area of the scale.
> >
> > And I say that's usually not enough.  If it's 20
> > cents flat, half of that (50%) is 10 cents, and a
> > third of that (33%) is about 7 cents.  So I pull A4
> > halfway in between those numbers, or about 8 1/2
> > cents sharp, which is roughly 40% of the amount it
> > was flat.  (I notice in other posts, some tuners use
> > up to 37% in some areas of the piano.)  Then I do
> > the pitch raise, all the octaves, then all the
> > unisons.  Almost every time, A4 ends up right on
> > 440, and the rest of the rough tuning is very close.
> >   So I go ahead and do the tuning (fine tuning).
> > It's after I'm done with the fine tuning, when I go
> > back to check for anything that has slipped, that I
> > find the middle of the piano and the low tenor has
> > crept sharp by a beat or even two.
> >
> > Immediately after the PR, do you check the middle
> > section for pitch?
> >
> > Yes, and it's almost always right on 440, so I
> > proceed with the fine tuning.  It's after the fine
> > tuning that I find it has crept sharp in the middle.
> >  The low tenor is also quite sharp, so now I leave
> > that area a bit flat during the pitch raise.  And
> > during the tuning (fine tuning), the SAT always
> > seems to "tune" the bass too flat, even if the bass
> > didn't need a pitch raise.
> >
> >  If it is at or near target, there is no reason for
> > it to creek up.
> >
> > One wouldn't think so.
> >
> >  How large a pitch gain are you talking about?
> >
> > Anywhere from just a few beats flat to a half-step
> > flat.
> >
> >  I've never noticed such a phenomena.
> >
> > That's "phenomenon."  Phenomena is plural.  (Just
> > for your own info.)
> > --David Nereson, RPT
> >
> > Terry Farrell
> >
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com