Electronic Tuning

[John Musselwhite]

Season't Greetings Everyone!

My apologies in advance for this long message...

>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.

FAC has improved it quite a bit IMO. I enjoy using it much more now. The
biggest change in using a SAT for me is the ability to do fast accurate
pitch adjustments which makes the final tuning more stable as well as the
ability to show the customer *exactly* how flat or sharp their instrument is
and whether the A is really 440 or not.

As an aside, I tuned a turn-of-the-century Baldwin upright the other day and
a previous technician make it very clear to the owner that she should never
let a tuner bring it "concert pitch" because it wouldn't take the strain (he
even marked it on the plate). With the accutuner I was able to show the
customer that it was sitting 20 cents SHARP of A=440 already and the treble
was nearly 100 cents sharp! Once I'd brought the pitch down it sounded
beautiful, even for a 95 year-old piano.

>I am now embarrassed with myself for having resisted a devise that has aided

Once my father (who learned to tune in the mid-twenties) saw how it could be
used he realized its advantages and gave his "approval" to it which is
something I didn't think I'd ever see. He never got a chance to use one, but
I played with it with him for a while. He still doesn't think much of any of
the other ETAs he's seen, though. He had an original PT-1 that Yamaha sent
him in the early sixties, but he disliked it intensely and called it a
glorified strobotuner suitable only for high-school orchestras.

>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

Incidentally, I bought my SAT used from Rick in '89. It's number 423 that he
used in most of those articles. While it's still #423, it's been upgraded
for FAC and the original boards are gone... I still love it though, and
thank Rick for using it in my introduction to the SAT in those Journal articles.

>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

I think they are... at least how I use it. I've had the opportunity to check
my aural tunings against an FAC as well as check an aural tuning against a
stored one and they've been pretty close. I've noticed some ambiguities but
they are mostly in the extreme treble and bass where I personally like a
bigger stretch. Some of my customers like an even BIGGER stretch ... up to
100 cents! It usually does a very nice equal temperament though, and the
ability to custom-program historical or "other" temperaments is wonderful!

>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

It's quite subjective, really. We strive for equal temperament at A=440 but
people and pianos don't always cooperate with our intent. I believe a large
part of our job is to  make those people and their pianos happy. If your
training allows you to do that then it doesn't matter whether it is
"correct" or not. I have customers who like their pianos tuned to A=430
because they can't sing to 440 and others who like 442 because that's where
their accordians are. My "training" was to make them happy and comfortable
and if they want their fifths pure then that's the way I'll tune it. The
concept of "correct" is only applicable to the situation whether it's
tuning, regulating or rebuilding.

>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

My first real exposure to SAT technology was a segment of a documentary on
"The Nature Of Things" about the piano. Dr. Sanderson had connected a
sight-o-tuner to a frequency counter and was using it to demonstrate
partials and their effect on tuning. This was probably only a few months
before the original SAT was released. I'd only been tuning a couple of years
and this was all new to me. Had it not been for that experience I may have
continued to consider ETAs to be a crutch rather than a tool.

BTW, that documentary is excellent if you ever get a chance to see it. I'm
not sure if the CBC will sell it separately, but if they do it's a great
addition to anyone's piano video library.

Once again, Season's Greetings to everyone!

                John

John Musselwhite, RPT               Calgary, Alberta Canada
musselj@cadvision.com                  Season's Greetings!