[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Fred Sturm]

	I agree with David, in that listening to intervals in the mid range  
is a good thing (if nothing else, to make life more interesting <G>),  
and mostly reveals unisons. And I always play octaves after tuning  
each note, for the same reason (the octave is the best unison test). I  
also play octaves to keep errors at bay (got on the wrong octave in  
the ETD, wrong tuning record, bad break somewhere - usually at a  
partial change). I don't worry much about the small intervals "multi- 
referencing" because I spent a lot of time questioning that, and  
learned to "trust the machine" to do a good job.
	Outside the mid range, I use the ETD to look at the larger picture. I  
like to look at 19ths (double octave fifth) and triple octaves in  
addition to double octaves and 12ths, and in my own style, I give  
precedence to triple octaves at this point (19ths when I was aural  
only). These are easy to read. In the high treble, when you start  
tuning first partials (around C6), play the notes those intervals  
below and read the lights. And alter the setting if you choose (and  
save it if you like the results).
	In the bass, I like the SAT default of 6th partial, because I can  
easily see 6:3 octave, 6:4 5ths, and 19ths. Before tuning the note,  
play the note a 19th above, the note an octave above, the note a 5th  
above. Read the lights and interpret them. It is obvious if the 6:3 is  
wide or narrow, and same for the other intervals.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Mar 18, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Porritt, David wrote:

> Richarda:
>
> Yes, one must do "multi-referencing" with an ETD to use your well- 
> coined
> term.  I check the 3rds all through the "temperament" area just as I
> would tuning aurally.  I do this for two reasons, 1: it checks the
> relationships as you are saying, and 2: it is the best check of the
> unison.  When I tune C4 (for example) and I play G#3 that third (ok,
> diminished 4th!) should sound the same with all strings sounding as it
> would with muting to single strings.  If it doesn't, then one of the
> unisons is un-good.  I also check octaves (when I've completed an  
> octave
> of tuned notes) to be sure they are sound.  Not only that they fit in
> the scheme of the piano, but that they have stayed where I want them.
> Since I start tuning at F3 and go up the scale, when I get to C5 I  
> have
> a 12th to check.  Since I aim for beatless 12ths I can then play F3  
> and
> I want the ETD display for C5 (reading the fundamental) to stop.  On  
> up
> the scale I continue checking 12ths playing the 12th below the note  
> I'm
> tuning and the pitch display should stop.
>
> Going in to the bass, I have the ETD set to read the 3rd partial (from
> E3 and down) so after I've tuned E3 to the ETD I can play B4 and it
> should stop the display.  If it doesn't something moved, I messed up  
> or
> something.  When I get down to the wrapped strings, I turn off the ETD
> and finish aurally.  Wrapped strings are kind of unpredictable so just
> doing those aurally is easier.  It also saves battery life of the ETD!
>
> There are lots of ways to check both aurally, and by using machine
> checks like my 12ths.  If you're a double octave tuner, that's easy  
> too.
> Checking isn't an aural, or ETD technique, it's a tuning technique!
>
> dave
>
> David M. Porritt, RPT
> dporritt at smu.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
> rwest1 at unl.edu
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?
>
> 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?)
>
>