This is a multipart message in MIME format ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment I generally tune unisons with the machine and the ear. Which= comes first? I use the middle string as my first tuned string= and bring the outside strings with the SAT III, the ear is the= final judge. It's funny, especially in the bass when you come= across a unison that will not be clean and end up, with the SAT,= tuning one string slightly flat and the other slightly sharp to= get as clean as possible the unison...I agree with Fred, I can= get very good unisons with the ETD but the ear decides if it's= good enough to move on... David Ilvedosn Original message From: Fred Sturm To: College and University Technicians Received: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:23:12 -0700 Subject: Re: [CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology) On 3/2/05 8:31 AM, "Wimblees@aol.com" <Wimblees@aol.com> wrote: No matter how hard I try, I have never been able to get a good= sounding unison from just having the lights stand still.= (SATIII). Really =93never?=94 There can certainly be problems interpreting= the SAT=92s display, and when a string produces a =93jumpy=94 display,= yes, it can be a problem tuning a really clean unison using the= display alone. According to Jim Coleman, the =93jumpiness=94 is= generally a result of a feature of SAT: the ability to hear and= display two pitches of a =93falsely beating=94 string= simultaneously. Going on the assumption that this was true, my approach when= using an SAT, and when I ran into a problem unison or string,= was to experiment with positioning the machine, finding a= placement and angle that would produce a relatively clean= display. Usually there would be two such positions, each= producing a different display (ie, one saying sharp, the other= flat). Tuning a clean unison was a matter of choosing the= =93better=94 pitch/display (by experimenting). In practice, this was= not as tiresome or time-consuming as it sounds. I find that the RCT (which I currently use) seems not to have= this problem, at least to the same degree. Sometimes I do need= to move the mike closer, but the display isn=92t usually= ambiguous. At any rate, I find that it is easier to interpret,= using all three visual feedback elements (spin, growing,= blushing). My typical concert tuning (no pitch change needed)= consists of playing each unison in turn, and when I hear one= that is a bit off, reading each string individually and= adjusting accordingly. I have not found a bit of problem relying= on the display to produce unisons that are as perfect as any I= have ever heard. I did the same with SAT, and the same was true except that= there might be more adjustment of the position of the machine.= For instance, all strings could read =93perfect=94 but I still heard= the unison as off. I would move the machine until I could get a= different display on one or more stings, then hone in on getting= that display to stop. And, yes, although it sounds more= cumbersome than =93just tuning the danged unison by ear,=94 I found= it time-saving. Why? Because if the machine is having trouble= hearing, so will I. And when using the machine, I am able to do= a smaller pitch move and be certain of just exactly what I have= done and how stable it is, while aurally it takes more time and= effort to be certain of small moves and their stability. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/de/31/29/ef/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC