Verituner

[larudee@pacbell.net]

I confess I was expecting something quite different from Keith.  I also had a VT
that I returned within the trial period, but reluctantly and for very different
reasons.

My basis for comparison is RCT 3.5, and I have never used a SAT.  I find that
VT, when used properly, produces the absolute best tuning available by machine.
I believe that this is because it is constantly adjusting the scale with each
new note, much as I do in aural tuning.  Every note is tuned to all the notes
preceding it, so that each note is essentially "customized."  As a result,
transition points are no problem for it.

I start by playing A4, A3, A5, A6, A2, the highest bass string, the lowest
tenor, the highest wound string and the lowest plain.  No need to use the
pointers, because VT measures all the partials and therefore recognizes every
note accordingly.  This gives VT a good overall picture, but it will continue to
refine the scale while tuning.  I then start with the lowest tenor and tune up
the scale, then the highest bass and tune down.

The results can be stunning if the pitch raise factor is insignificant.  If it
is, you may have to go over it a second time, in which case the results might
even be better, because VT now has all the inharmonicity info for every note in
the scale.  Save the info for next time, because VT will use it as its starting
point and improve even more.

Using all the partials for the readout and calculations has other advantages.
It keeps the display more constant without resorting to averaging techniques.
The signal for a single partial can be unsteady and unreliable, but when you
measure all of them, some can take over while the signal for the primary one is
out of phase.

In my opinion, VT is absolutely the wave of the future, and its technology is
beyond anything else available on the market today.  So why did I return mine?

The reason is that although it may be the future, in some respects I would have
to say that it is not the present.   My RCT is on a Sony VAIO that slips in the
side pocket of my Genck case.  The VT is bulky by comparison and is another
piece of equipment to carry.  However, that's a fairly insignificant matter, in
my opinion.  I also don't care very much about the battery time.

A more important reason is the display.  It gives me things I like very much,
such as real time info on various partial values and signal strengths, and it
gives me a real time numerical display of cents deviation as well.  However, the
spinner is rather primitive, in my opinion.  Not exactly confusing, but not as
easy to follow as RCT, even when you get used to it.  Still, I wouldn't kick it
out of bed for that reason alone, even when you take into account that it's
small and monochrome.

The kicker for me is the pitch raise or "coarse" mode, which is very primitive
indeed.  With RCT I can come to a piano that is 4 to eight cents off, do a pass
in pitch raise mode and have it come out almost the same as using fine tune mode
on a piano that is close to zero cents off but out of tune.  This is something I
most definitely cannot do with VT, where I will need two passes to get the same
result.  Since these situations are fairly common in my work, VT simply costs me
more time than I can afford.  That's why I went back to RCT.

I still want a VT, but I have decided to wait until the display and pitch raise
mode match the sophistication of the rest of the system.  When that happens, I
will be first in line.

Paul Larudee