[CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology)

[David Ilvedson]

This is a multipart message in MIME format

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
I generally tune unisons with the machine and the ear.   Which=
 comes first?   I use the middle string as my first tuned string=
 and bring the outside strings with the SAT III, the ear is the=
 final judge.   It's funny, especially in the bass when you come=
 across a unison that will not be clean and end up, with the SAT,=
 tuning one string slightly flat and the other slightly sharp to=
 get as clean as possible the unison...I agree with Fred, I can=
 get very good unisons with the ETD but the ear decides if it's=
 good enough to move on...

David Ilvedosn







Original message
From: Fred Sturm 
To: College and University Technicians 
Received: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:23:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology)


On 3/2/05 8:31 AM, "Wimblees@aol.com" <Wimblees@aol.com> wrote:


No matter how hard I try, I have never been able to get a good=
 sounding unison from just having the lights stand still.=
 (SATIII). 


    Really =93never?=94 There can certainly be problems interpreting=
 the SAT=92s display, and when a string produces a =93jumpy=94 display,=
 yes, it can be a problem tuning a really clean unison using the=
 display alone. According to Jim Coleman, the =93jumpiness=94 is=
 generally a result of a feature of SAT: the ability to hear and=
 display two pitches of a =93falsely beating=94 string=
 simultaneously. 
    Going on the assumption that this was true, my approach when=
 using an SAT, and when I ran into a problem unison or string,=
 was to experiment with positioning the machine, finding a=
 placement and angle that would produce a relatively clean=
 display. Usually there would be two such positions, each=
 producing a different display (ie, one saying sharp, the other=
 flat). Tuning a clean unison was a matter of choosing the=
 =93better=94 pitch/display (by experimenting). In practice, this was=
 not as tiresome or time-consuming as it sounds.
    I find that the RCT (which I currently use) seems not to have=
 this problem, at least to the same degree. Sometimes I do need=
 to move the mike closer, but the display isn=92t usually=
 ambiguous. At any rate, I find that it is easier to interpret,=
 using all three visual feedback elements (spin, growing,=
 blushing). My typical concert tuning (no pitch change needed)=
 consists of playing each unison in turn, and when I hear one=
 that is a bit off, reading each string individually and=
 adjusting accordingly. I have not found a bit of problem relying=
 on the display to produce unisons that are as perfect as any I=
 have ever heard. 
    I did the same with SAT, and the same was true except that=
 there might be more adjustment of the position of the machine.=
 For instance, all strings could read =93perfect=94 but I still heard=
 the unison as off. I would move the machine until I could get a=
 different display on one or more stings, then hone in on getting=
 that display to stop. And, yes, although it sounds more=
 cumbersome than =93just tuning the danged unison by ear,=94 I found=
 it time-saving. Why? Because if the machine is having trouble=
 hearing, so will I. And when using the machine, I am able to do=
 a smaller pitch move and be certain of just exactly what I have=
 done and how stable it is, while aurally it takes more time and=
 effort to be certain of small moves and their stability.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/de/31/29/ef/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--