Brian and list, I swore that I would never do those "me too" posts but this one is well written and I agree! You can count me as "me too" Greg Newell Brian Trout wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I'm a little late to respond in this thread, and I use TuneLab with David > Porritt's "Calculate" program instead of Cybertuner, but I'll speak a bit on > what I've observed with that. > > First of all, David Porritt or somebody with a similar background could > probably give a much more technically accurate account of what I've seen, so > take what I say with a grain of salt. :-) > > When I take inharmonicity measurements with the Tunelab / Calculate program, > after taking the individual measurement, I get a little box which has a > series of numbers representing those inharmonicity levels and the partials > associated with them. (Sorry I can't be a bit more technically accurate.) > I do pay attention to the numbers that are given. It'll give a list such > as: > > Fund: 0.00 > 1st: 0.04 > 2nd: 0.45 > 3rd: 2.79 > 4th: 4.12 > 5th: 8.49 > 6th: 14.84 > 7th: 19.09 > 8th: 28.66 > and so on, up to the 12th partial or so. That's only an example from > memory, and only intended to be an illustration. Those kinds of numbers are > what I'm expecting to see. They usually progress more quickly as you move > higher in the scale of the piano, and it's harder to get good measurements > for the higher partials as you get higher as well. > > If you get a reading like this: > > Fund: 0.00 > 2nd: 0.43 > 3rd: 1.81 > 4th: 24.80 > 5th: 58.97 > 6th: 2.76 > 7th: 11.52 > 8th: 12.84 > > or: > > Fund: 0.00 > 2nd: 1.04 > 3rd: 6.93 > 4th: 26.81 > 5th: 11.77 > 6th: 0.44 > 7th: 4.01 > etc. > > ...the program usually doesn't know what to do with those numbers to make a > decent tuning. > > When I've collected all of the IH readings, and performed the 'calculate' > function, I immediately go to a function called "Graphically Edit Tuning" or > something similar. This gives me a screen which graphically displays the > tuning. Just from seeing tuning curves from previous tunings, one can get > pretty good at telling whether a particular tuning will 'work' or not. When > the individual numbers line up in a reasonable sequence, usually, they will > work well. If they don't, they won't normally give as predictable a tuning > curve. (Also, if I just can't get it to do what I want with the > inharmonicity readings and the Calculate program, I can manually tell it > what I want by moving sections of the curve or individual notes to my > liking.) > > Some things that seem to matter are, how hard one strikes the string, > whether the hammers are rock hard, (on a grand shifting the action can > help<hint, hint>) what kind of scale the piano has, overall condition, room > noises (air conditioners, kids)... there's a lot of stuff that might affect > those readings. > > With the TuneLab / Calculate setup, if I really can't get a good reading > with a particular note that's needed, I will try a neighboring note to see > if one of them will give a more reasonable harmonic layout. This > programming will allow those numbers to be substituted for the note I > couldn't get. > > I think TuneLab and Calculate are excellent programs, and I commend Rob and > Dave both for their efforts. But by the same token, they are tools, and are > subject to the skills of the operator. I often tell my customers, the > computer makes a great tool, but a terrible master. > > There's some food for thought. Perhaps Dave will have more technical input > if anyone is interested. > > Best wishes, > > Brian Trout > Quarryville, PA > btrout@desupernet.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC