Electronic Tuning

[Sy Zabrocki]

Occasionally there is some slight reference as to whether the Accu-Tuner or
any electronic tuning aid (ETA) is accurate. I tuned aurally for 31 years
and scoffed at the Sight-O-Tuner for years. Who wants to fuss with all that
measuring and fiddle with the calculator card. Being a electronic nut it
interested me but still it seemed like too much trouble.

Then the Accu-Tuner (SAT) came on the scene. I still resisted it and even
tried to find fault with it. Even Al Sanderson admits it has room for
improvement at least in the stretch calculator. Now there is the FAC update
which must have improved that mode.

I broke down and purchased a SAT five years ago. I just love that little
device. I once stated that if I had to choose between my wife and the SAT,
I'd have to give it some thought. Anyway I still have them both.

I am now embarrassed with myself for having resisted a devise that has aided
in defining piano tuning to it's present level. Articles in PTG Journal by
Rick Baldissin (gee that guy is smart) starting about 1983 were most
helpful. Unless  you really really understand partials at every level I
could see how some could doubt the SAT.

The results of a good aural tuner and an experienced SAT tuner should be
very close to identical. There are advanced modes of the SAT which are
extremely accurrate and consistent each time. Even if one used only the
simplest stretch mode the public would be well served. There are probably a
good percentage of tuners  who could not equal it consistently.

The subject of tuning has been ambiguous for decades. One would say "I was
trained this way"  and another would believe his training was correct. I
think it can be said the SAT, it's inventor and some others have contributed
greatly to our craft. Even Wm. Briad White was using electronics to prove
what was up to then theory. He would have loved the latest digital wonder.

Sy Zabrocki (Billings, MT)
only4zab@mcn.net