Tuning exam unisons, was: Odd partial

[Jim]

Dear Jim (FL):

I know what you mean about paranoia. I used to be a very self confident
tuner who knew what he was doing aurally.  That blue box has made me
very insecure.  My friend Raye McCall used to say to me: "Jim, you have
absolutely no right to feel insecure.  Now stop it."  Like you, when I
first received my SOT and later SAT, I continue to be amazed at the
times my "box shows me up."  Eventually, I quit trying to improve machine
tunings and tried harder to use the machine to its fullest extent.
After a little more research, I plan to write a series of articles
on how to use alternate stretch numbers to purposely vary the amount of
stretch in the scale to improve the overall sound of a piano.

At the present time I am trying to encourage more people to tune the
treble unisons with the machine.  There is tremendous improvement and
stability available.  The only drawback is that moving the mutes is a
little more time consuming.

Jim Coleman, Sr.


On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 JIMRPT@aol.com wrote:

> Dr. Jim C.;
> "The concern about machine unisons being inferior to aural unisons is just
> not borne out in my experience."
>   The concern that I was expressing was that a good, solid, aural unision
> might be scored low because the machine said it was not solid. Your
> explanation has resolved that concern.
>   As a, to paraphrase R. Carr,  recovering aural tuner I am delving into Dr.
> Al's blue box and am finding it fascinating. It is disturbing how many times
> I am losing arguments with it. The darned just sits there stoically and
> stares at me with those damnable red eyes and says nothing, but I know that
> somewhere inside it is laughing at me. At those times I need to remind myself
> that just because I am paranoid  it doesn't mean that the blue box demons are
> not out to get me.
> Jim Bryant (FL)
>