[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Andrew Anderson]

Richard,
I can respond to this in reference to Veritune.  I utilize the 
VT100.  I have programmed a custom style on mine utilizing various 
intervals, three at a time, with per-centage (of 100) preference set 
for priority to each depending which octave of the piano I am 
tuning.  The tuner measure inharmonicity on all notes except the top 
octave where the first partial only is utilized.  These measurements 
are stored in the named tuning for that instrument.  The minimum 
procedure for Veritune is to tune A4 & A3 and then start at the 
bottom and go up.  Each note is measured and stored.  If the piano 
requires a significant pitch raise I do recalculate after the first 
pass as inharmonicity resonances do seem to change as the whole piano 
approaches working tension, the targets do change.

Every time you approach the same tuning it zeroes in some 
more.  Second and third tunings a better when the piano was way 
off.  Each note is in a matrix of partial measurements and those 
measurements are confirmed as you go unless you turn it off (useful 
when tuning two pianos together).

Now I like to confirm the tuning playing intervals afterwards as 
intervals will expose loose unisons, or bad note placement, 
especially on calculated over-pulls (one-pass pitch corrections).

YMMV
Andrew Anderson

At 11:58 AM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
>One thing that has always bothered me about ETD's is that there seems
>to be so little "multi-referencing," if I can coin a word.  Perhaps I
>just need someone to show me how to operate an ETD to get more out of
>it. I'll see if I can briefly explain what I mean.
>
>An aural tuner's accuracy depends heavily on "multireferencing,"
>i.e., tuning a note by referring to many other notes.  For example,
>tuning the G4 I start with the octave, then check the M3rd-M10th, the
>4th and its test interval (M3rd-M6h), the 5th and its test interval
>(M6th-M10th), the ascending/descending M 6ths, etc.  I'm actually
>doing two things with all of this multi-referencing:  tuning G4 and
>checking all of my work up to that point.
>
>ETD users take readings to set up the tuning on the machine, but then
>the process is centered around one note after another without
>referencing other notes, especially if no aural checks are
>incorporated into the process.  My question is this:  Without
>referencing other notes, how do you know that the G4, for example,
>fits in the larger scheme of things?  What if the note is quirky and
>hard to read?  You don't have any other reference note to use to
>determine where the string should be placed.  Maybe there are people
>out there who don't rely on the one reading and measure 4:2 octaves,
>or 4ths, or 5ths etc, although that seems cumbersome and time-consuming.
>
>My main point, therefore, is that the potential of leaving a note
>"out of tune" with other notes is greater because there aren't the
>checks and balances that aural tuning affords.
>
>Perhaps I'm misinformed and/or ignorant on sophisticated ETD use.
>But I also fear that many beginners simply turn on the machine and
>slavishly follow it without really knowing whether the piano is
>really better or not.  Just as bad a possibility is that it seems
>easy to get sloppy so that the full blush isn't there, or the X
>pattern isn't there.  This compromises the results and the tuner
>doesn't really know any better.
>
>Sloppiness and laziness can compromise aural as well as ETD tuning.
>It just seems to me that either system has to have some multi- 
>referencing and I'm just not familiar with how that's done using an ETD.
>
>Richard West
>
>
>On Mar 18, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Richard Brekne wrote:
>
>>Hi folks
>>
>>Whilst I realize the exchange below has been hashed out by a few it
>>does raise a central issue not really well discussed.  The fact is
>>that we have no real practical value for the degree of <<accuracy>>
>>ETD's provide. This is actually a big part of why they are able to
>>provide a more then satisfactory result for the vast majority of
>>situations.  The rest being that the algorithms employed yield a
>>tuning curve that is very close to what results in a <<perfect>>
>>ear tuning.
>>
>>This said, we all have many examples of what real life situations
>>require of us.  Tho being able to be <<accurate>> within 1/10th of
>>your target (whether that be an ETD or Aural target) may be nice to
>>be able to provide... but it is not necessary.  That by no means
>>doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of the ability to be so on
>>target... it just means we can in fact easily live with less in
>>nearly all situations.This accounts for the acceptability of what
>>is in fact a rather large range of variation between high quality
>>Aural tunings and also explains why the best ETD's of today glide
>>right into that same range of acceptabilty.
>>None of this justifies one approach over the other per'se.  But one
>>can indeed argue successfully that at this level of tuning a
>>critical Aural approval to the end tuning is to be preferred since
>>in the end the instrument is to be listened to by human ears and
>>not machine ears. We all know even the best of tunings can always
>>be improved upon... and that most definitely applies to a purely
>>ETD executed tuning.  Sure it can fly comfortably.... but my money
>>will always be on the person who employs ALL the tools at his/her
>>disposal.  Learning to refine any tuning Aurally is to my mind of
>>thinking an essential part of any serious piano technicians tool
>>box. We are beyond here any discussion of accuracies... we are in
>>an arena of artistic endeavor and creativity. And in that arena...
>>the ETD has limited value. Indeed... when a tuning is at this level
>>I would go so far as to say the ETD is most usually misused as a
>>tool for refinement, since the tuner nearly never uses the ETD in
>>the direct referencing modus our ears do.
>>
>>Cheers
>>RicB
>>
>>
>>    Hi, Don
>>
>>         >It would appear that the best that can be done on a totally
>>        "Aural" basis
>>         >is 1/10 of a cent. No one told me that such small changes
>>were
>>        hard to
>>         >make--so I simply bashed away until I could make that sort of
>>        resolution. I
>>         >guess this would be a case of an ETD driving a student to a
>>        higher level
>>         >than they might have achieved without one.
>>
>>
>>    And your reason for wanting 1/100th of a cent? Sort of a hobby,
>>perhaps?
>>    "Because it was there ..." ? You surely don't think there's a human
>>    oscilloscope out there who could discern the difference unaided?
>>    (And would they mind if they could?)
>