[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Andrew Anderson]

If you choose not to "recalculate" it does not check the notes but 
simply posts the targets.  I use this choice (not to) when tuning for 
Duo concerts.  Otherwise I always check.  Like I said, the second 
pass on a big pitch raise benefits from a menu forced recalculation.

Andrew Anderson

At 02:29 PM 3/18/2008, you wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>I have a Verituner (and a SAT) and I was wondering if you or anyone 
>on the list knows exactly what the "Recalculate tuning" does? It 
>asks you that every time you go back to a tuning that is already 
>recorded in the machine. If all the "info" has been collected (i.e. 
>the little "I" is full on every note) then what is it actually doing 
>by this "recalculation"?
>
>Thanks,
>Jim Busby
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf 
>Of Andrew Anderson
>Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:10 PM
>To: College and University Technicians
>Subject: Re: [CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?
>
>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?)
> >