<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> On 3/2/05 8:31 AM, "Wimblees@aol.com" <Wi= mblees@aol.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE>No matter = how hard I try, I have never been able to get a good sounding unison from ju= st having the lights stand still. (SATIII). </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>     Really “never?” There can certainly be = problems interpreting the SAT’s display, and when a string produces a = “jumpy” display, yes, it can be a problem tuning a really clean = unison using the display alone. According to Jim Coleman, the “jumpine= ss” is generally a result of a feature of SAT: the ability to hear and= display two pitches of a “falsely beating” string simultaneousl= y.     Going on the assumption that this was true, my appr= oach 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 th= at would produce a relatively clean display. Usually there would be two such= positions, each producing a different display (ie, one saying sharp, the ot= her flat). Tuning a clean unison was a matter of choosing the “better&= #8221; pitch/display (by experimenting). In practice, this was not as tireso= me or time-consuming as it sounds.     I find that the RCT (which I currently use) seems n= ot to have this problem, at least to the same degree. Sometimes I do need to= move the mike closer, but the display isn’t usually ambiguous. At any= rate, I find that it is easier to interpret, using all three visual feedbac= k elements (spin, growing, blushing). My typical concert tuning (no pitch ch= ange needed) consists of playing each unison in turn, and when I hear one th= at 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 exce= pt that there might be more adjustment of the position of the machine. For i= nstance, all strings could read “perfect” but I still heard the = unison as off. I would move the machine until I could get a different displa= y on one or more stings, then hone in on getting that display to stop. And, = yes, although it sounds more cumbersome than “just tuning the danged u= nison by ear,” 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 </BODY> </HTML>