Peterson tuners, how accurate?

[Richard Brekne]

Charles Neuman wrote:

> Thanks for the responses so far. To respond back:
>
> Ric, it's true the Peterson doesn't do real-time inharmonicity readings.
> They have a set of presets, as people have pointed out. You can manually
> change them if you want. It's funny how they advertise. They refer to the
> confusing LED's on other brands, and mention that you can't REALLY get a
> good tuning curve just by sampling three notes as other brands do.

Grin... Petersons argument about tuning curves seems like they are shooting
themselves in the foot. If you cant get a good tuning curve by sampling three
or even 6 notes... how on earth can you hope to get one without sampling at
all ?

>
> Don, I now use TuneLab on a stationary computer next to the piano. I'll
> probably get a cheap laptop so I can be mobile with it. That seems like a
> good solution. But I'm looking around at other things as well, just to be
> well-informed. I agree that a Journal article on the subject would be
> great. Not so much a buyer's guide, but a technical comparison.

Tunelabe is great for learning about the whole area of tuning / partial
theory.  It requires more manual work when it comes to making a tuning curve,
but it can do this to. But its great to use as a direct reference machine. Jim
Coleman once said that useing machines in this way was one of the things that
put him onto the concept of tuning curves to begin with.

>
> Ron, that makes sense to not be distracted by the "precision", but to also
> consider what it is comparing the note to.
>
> Charles




--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html