Gleanings
From The CAUT List Compiled and
edited by Eric Wolfley, RPT, Here in New England, in institutional buildings designed and built 100+ years ago, I've read the temp. and humidity levels for the past 20+ years. I've tuned pianos, fortepianos, harpsichords and even clavichords in studios and on stage. The humidity has ranged between 11%-92% R.H., the temp. between -32° to 94° F.- more, I'm sure, when the spots [or sun] are on the plate and soundboard for hours. The pianos [tuned at least several times a year] have been found off by 50+ cents, the fortepianos etc., off by 100+ cents. I'd estimate that a shift of more than 5% R.H. will knock out most grands. A spot light on the soundboard of a fortepiano, and a tuning won't make it through a movement. It can be a trick to get the fortepiano situated well acoustically and the artists able to see their music without frying the soundboard. The option to open the instrument and turn on the spots for 10+ hours, then tune and perform, is obviously very damaging in the long term. One frustration with keeping a concert instrument in a climate controlled environment and then taking it out onto the spot lit stage is that the audience always hears the tuning at it's least stable. Anyone have some humidity-stagecraft strategies to offer? A Steinway concert grand in one off the funkiest environments has been kept for the last two years with a Dampp-Chaser System always plugged in and a floor length cover when not in use. It has never been more than 4 cents from A440, and that only at F2 and the notes just above it - elsewhere within 2 cents. My tuning times are down to the point where I can concentrate on the fine points of tone production. Here in N.E., I'd estimate a savings of at least half for a tuning budget and instruments closer to in tune between tunings. How to quantify for purposes of the guidelines? As a starting point, we might suggest some arbitrary standards for excellent, good, fair and poor conditions. Cent swings for those categories might be, respectively, 5, 10, 15, 25 (average cents off A440 for the average piano, where the performance piano(s) might be kept within 2 cents, piano faculty within 5, down to uprights in practice rooms within 25, to name some arbitrary figures). I'd second these numbers as guidelines, though it always irritates me that students trying to develop their ears as well their fingers are condemned to play on poorly functioning uprights in poor tune. Rob Loomis UMASS Amherst
A Reply from Mark Cramer… With regard to Rob's remarks (if in fact this is where he was going), I agree that the guidelines would function better using pitch deviation rather than humidity fluctuation to determine the effects of climate on workload. Last year we upgraded all systems here; 50 watt dehumidification for verticals, 50 plus 25 for grands, and double tanks for the concert grands. According to the tables, this should move our "climate" status up from .70 (wild season swings) to 1.0. In reality however, we still do have some instruments that fluctuate (seasonally) by as much as 15-20cts, still requiring pitch correction (increased workload) before tuning. The dampp-chasers have made an enormous impact on the stability of tunings throughout most of the year. It would be inaccurate to say the systems have neutralized the effects of our climate (from .70 to 1.0) though. However, the pitch deviation from season to season has decreased dramatically. BTW, I've two clients whose pianos (both verticals equipped w/ 5PS50's) would still swing up to 40cts between seasons. I've documented this through pitch corrections, system upgrades and component tests over the last ten to twelve years. A year ago I supplied both clients with the Mylar "back-covers." On my recent tunings I am pleased to note, both pianos for the very first time, were within 4 cents of pitch. In the practice of "good" science, I will continue to monitor these pianos, but am somewhat ready to go out and by a 300' roll of the stuff for the University! Comments? Mark Cramer, RPT Brandon University
Jeff Tanner writes… …But one thing I was curious about. How were the values derived which are assigned to the climate control variable in the formula? I look at the first variable, "Condition", and see that a piano in poor condition can be given a factor of .25, and one in fair condition gets .50 (this is a useable instrument). But the most weight that can be assigned to a building with poor climate control only affects the equation by a value of .70. I fully realize that these were not arbitrary figures and that much study went into their creation. But some things have changed in regards to institutional climate control since the formula was first adopted and I wonder if this variable needs to be addressed. Consider: I am in a 5 year old building which has one of the newer HVAC systems as required by that federal mandate Walter Deptula mentioned in his article in the January 2000 PTJ (constantly imports outside air). I understand it is not the original system, but that it replaced the original one after this legislation was passed. I was told the original system did a decent job of climate control. These new systems, however, effectively turn a 30 million dollar building into a five-story canopy tent. The building is now "controlled by climate". Tuning stability is simply not a possibility (I started to say for 90% of the pianos, but then realized that even the recital pianos which are tuned almost daily aren't immune to the tuning instability brought on by the sudden drastic humidity changes). (We have some of the same problems to a somewhat lesser degree in our brand-new facilities at the Cincinnati Conservatory – Editor) Here in my part of the world, it is possible see not so uncommon weekly swings of 20-30% humidity with annual differences of around 50% and more. It isn't uncommon to see overnight swings as high as 15 to 20%, and during Winter, it can even be higher (I had a 3-day-or-less drop of 29% last February in my recital hall, where climate control was supposed to be the best in the building). If I tune recital pianos in the morning, the humidity by the time they are played in the afternoon can be 10 to 15% different (the recital hall is used as a classroom 4-6 hours a day, so the lights have an effect -- it's not a large room). Just in the last week in the recital hall alone, I've measured 47%, 61%, 51%, and 62% in that order. And all this is with help from 6 "climate control units" which are supposedly capable of some form of humidity control, though I haven't been able to tell a difference since they were "installed" summer/fall 1998. Does a factor of .70 adequately address these changes that weren't so drastic prior to these new HVAC systems? Isn't a piano, regardless of condition, but which can't be kept in tune about as useful as one in "fair" (or worse) condition? A piano in fair condition can at least be tuned and used for ear training and even rehearsal (when I was in college, fair to poor was the norm for about half of the general practice rooms -- fair to good pianos were reserved for piano majors only -- there was no "excellent" for a number of years). Rebuilding is likely bottlenecked as much by budget as by tech time and then ranked by importance of the instrument. I can count on one finger how many pianos were partially rebuilt over a 13-year period at my Alma Mater, while the marching band got twenty-something new Sousaphones one of those years (no - I wasn't in school that long -- just kept in touch with the tech). Climate control affects how often that piano has to be tuned as well as its condition. Here, I am one tech against 127 pianos. As a state employee, I can only report 37.5 hours per week. I'm not allowed overtime. I love my job, but I'm underpaid as it is, and certainly not about to put in a lot of free overtime -- there's more to this life. In this climate, about all I can do is try to keep the piano and voice faculty and "important" rehearsal and classroom instruments in some semblance of tune and repair, concentrate on our performance grands and just try to keep the rest of them from falling apart. Attempting to perform all the maintenance these pianos need is futile, even counterproductive because of the climate. I just don't know if 3.4 technicians could make that much difference. I'm not trying to upset the apple cart. Just wondering if this figure needs adjustment for the "new" factors. Jeff Tanner, Piano Technician School of Music University of South Carolina
And one solution from Paul Kupelian… Oswego State University is located in upstate New York on the shore of Lake Ontario. We have four very different and distinct seasons with very warm humid summers and long cold winters with an average snowfall of over 150", more if the lake effect snow machine acts up too much. So far this year we have been lucky. I have control of over 60 pianos, mostly Steinways, which were all manufactured around 1968. To complicate things, our practice room area is below ground level. I have been tracking the humidity in this area for the past several years. I have consistent readings of 18-21% RH in February to 80-85% RH in July and August. All of the pianos in this area have Dampp-Chasers on them. The difficulty I have is that the systems are not uniform. I have some older D-C units with the larger pails, and less efficient humidistats and no low water warning lights, as well as the newer ones that have smaller pails and low water lights. The teaching studios all have grand units with smaller pails still. As a result, it becomes a daily chore to keep up with the humidity needs of the pianos. Enter our service fraternity Mu Beta Psi. At the beginning of each semester, I fill out a service request form to have several students meet with me to set up a crew that will service the pianos when required. Their responsibilities are to fill the humidifiers as needed, change the humidifier pads as needed, and to have at least one person check daily to make sure that all units are plugged in and that if any low water warning lights are blinking, to fill the pail. This has made it easier for me to keep up with more technical aspects of my job. I really appreciate how much this service is for me, especially when I have to do it myself when the students are gone for a month between December and January. Paul Kupelian, RPT Oswego State University
|
