As I understand it, Tunic's inventor strongly urges tuning the unisons string-by-string with his ETD program. Kent Swafford has stated he believes this is significant. Why? Again I will ask you: once two strings have coupled, how will you tell what is the difference between the two uncoupled frequencies? I also have heard plenty of descriptions of legendary tunings. I do not doubt that the world's greatest tuner produced the world's greatest tuning. I have not heard it, or seen measurements. ES ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> To: <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:58 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] String Coupling / SB and Bridge stiffness...and maybe Pure Sound > Ed > > I dont see how string coupling gets into how Tunic works. Nor would I > accept the idea that the <<unusually clear sound>> you mention below is > not something that aural tuners are capable of producing. Personally, I > reject utterly the suggestion that any machine can out perform the well > trained and very experience aural tuner aside from being able to more > precisely identify whether a given string is vibrating at a given > frequency... and even there there is very good grounds for questioning. > > Tunic works because of the algorithm behind it, which is in most > simplistic sense a perfect 12ths priority tunings based on math that > utilizes 3:1 partial matching. This is then imposed onto a pianos > inharmonicity and is doable aurally just like any other stretch is given > the appropriate aural tests. In essence it is the stretch itself that > works. Even so... this can be tweaked aurally to enhance the end result, > as any ETD generated tuning can be. There is to much para inharmonicity > for things to be otherwise, even in the higher regions of the piano, and > no ETD per date has either the hardware processing capability to take this > into consideration or an algorithm for dealing with it. > > I've heard plenty of discriptions of Virgils tunings, and some of his more > experienced followers that fit this <<unusually clear sound>>. IMV this > has nothing to do with approaching anything like a "mathematically perfect > unison". It has to do with getting closer to an aurally clear unison > within a greater perspective of that unisons realtionships with all other > unisons in a piano. > > Cheers > RicB > > > Kent Swafford, are you there? > > Consider this line of thought: > > Assuming that all unisons involve some degree of coupling, then it > is not possible to tune a "mathematically perfect" unison by usual > aural methods because, as the tuned note approaches unison, when it > passes the "coupling threshold" it will couple with the other > string(s) without having to be the exact matching frequency. > (Listening high up the partials would help.) > > Since, with Tunic Pure Sound, you are tuning each string of the > unison "solitary," to match the ETD display, is it possible that the > three strings, when tuned this way, are closer to a "mathematically > perfect" unison that an aurally tuned unison can be? > > Can this account for the unusually clear sound of certain very > widely spaced chords on the Hailun piano you tuned with Tunic? > > Ed Sutton > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC