<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners-= technology)</TITLE></HEAD> <BODY>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 <DIV style="PADDING-RIGHT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;= PADDING-BOTTOM: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 3px solid;= PADDING-TOP: 5px"> <HR> Original message From: Fred Sturm <FSSTURM@UNM.EDU> To:= College and University Technicians <CAUT@PTG.ORG> 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: <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>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).= </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT= face=Verdana>     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 “jumpiness” is generally a result= of a feature of SAT: the ability to hear and display two pitches= of a “falsely beating” 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 “better” 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’t 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 “perfect” 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 “just tuning the danged unison 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 </DIV></BODY></HTML>