Ron, I don't believe the SAT, Verituner listen to lower partials/fundemental at all do they? I believe they are using upper partials for all measuring...? David I. ----- Original message ----------------------------------------> From: Ron Koval <drwoodwind@hotmail.com> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Received: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:20:44 +0000 Subject: Re: E.T.D. >Some random thoughts about the "tuning calculators" >I see three basic types of tuning machines out there. >1. flat liners: most of the needle-type, along with the basic strobe >tuners. These (mostly) will read in equal temperament only and have varying >precision, listening to the fundamental. There is no provision for >inharmonicity and stretch. (Though they can be used for piano work, even a >cheap one has value for a beginning aural tuner to avoid major blunders in >the temperament octave.) >2. Template tuners: Korg Mt-1200, Yamaha tuner, the new Peterson strobe.. >These tuners have various piano stretches loaded in. Pretty much a >crapshoot if the generic curve will fit the piano. Still of value in piano >work, used everyday by many, though set-up to read the fundamental only. >(Not sure about the Yamaha) >3. Sampling tuners: SAT, Tunelab, RCT, Verituner. All have some ablility >to "listen" to sample notes and extrapolate a tuning, filling in the blanks >using math. Different partials are chosen to read for different parts of the >piano. (Verituner uses many at once) >Here's where it gets interesting. I've been doing a bunch of inharmonicity >research. It's not the upper partials that get wilder, it's the lower ones, >as you progress down into the wound strings that get unpredictable. So, >depending on which partial is chosen to be tuned to a smooth curve, the >resultant tuning will be different with each machine. I'm always amazed >that people say there isn't any difference between the tunings calculated by >the different machines. In the tests I've done, there are many different >tuning curves generated by these machines. Maybe people mean that the end >result sounds ok using the different gear. (allright, that's something >different) Using the fundamental only pretty much forces the upper partials >into a randomized mess, so with the more basic tuners, it's important to >know how to check the upper partials. >I guess it really comes down to what you expect from a machine. If you want >the best tuning possible generated, you'd be best off with a sampling >machine. With the amound of non-linear partial stuff in the wound strings >I've been measuring, I'd go with the one that samples the most notes. If, >however, you're just looking for something to get the temperament close, get >a needle tuner (or the new mini-strobe). Like research? One of the >computer-based ones can be informative, with graphs, charts and things. >Looking for maximum battery life with a proven track record- then go with a >SAT. >These ramblings help any? >Ron Koval >Chicagoland >_________________________________________________________________ >Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. >http://www.hotmail.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC