True or False

[Jim]

On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, DAN G. LITWIN wrote:

> The truth about accutuners is simple, but two-fold:
>
> 1)  accu-tuners which measure  "FAC" and calculate a tuning, will produce a
> tuning which often needs aural touch-up.  So there's your 95%.  But the final
> tuning can be entered into the computer for future re-use - which is highly
> accurate.
>

Snip Snip

Dear Dan:

I respectfully take issue with the word "often" in the above paragraph.
I believe the word occasionally fits the facts a little better and here
are my reasons.

1.  Although is is true that by taking only 3 sample notes to project a
    complete tuning, there is no way the machine can tell where the wire
    size changes occur, if one were to make the changes aurally to (for
    example) improve the temperament, one does this at the expense of
    forcing errors in smoothness perhaps one or two octaves higher which
    would not need those corrections.

2.  It has been my experience during many lab type situations where, if
    I went back over my temperament to correct aurally detected errors,
    in most cases when I stopped the rotation of the LEDs a little better
    the temperament was improved to the point where I could not
    improve it aurally.  For this very reason, we have always recommended
    that one keep the ears turned on a well as the machine.  The ears may
    catch an error that the eyes missed and vice versa.

3.  In most "Master Tuning" sessions more time is wasted because the 3
    individual tuners may have a slightly different view of what kind of
    octave stretch should be used.  This causes them to continue to redo
    each other's work until they finally settle down to something they
    can all live with.  Much time can be saved if they first set up a
    good machine tuning and then ferret out the slight deviations from
    the machine tuning before launching out into un-needed aural changes.

4.  It is often observed in aural tuning that one may skew the temperament
    in one direction or another.  Using the Baldassin/Sanderson aural
    temperament over a 2 octave range helps preclude this from happening.
    I have personally done hundreds of temperaments carefully refining to
    the machine specifications, and have found it un-necessary to change
    anything to make it sound better aurally.  I believe this is a better
    preparation for the tuning of the ensuing octave work than stroking
    my EGO and thinking that I do a better temperament aurally.  Ask
    yourself this question.  How many times have I set a beautiful scale
    and then just a few notes above the temperament I discovered that
    something just did not fit?  This is often due to a skewed
    temperament.

5.  Anything you do to aurally smooth out a major thirds progression
    in a poorly designed string scale will result in more un-evenness in
    the affected minor thirds and in the respective 4ths and 5ths.  Many
    will say "I don't use minor 3rds."  Well, they are there, are they
    not?  There sometimes arises a situation where you can't have all the
    major 3rds and all the major 6ths progressing smoothly due to scaling.
    Which kinds of compromises should be made?  This is not just a
    simple matter of saying that machine tuning is better than aural
    tuning or that aural tuning is better than machine tuning.  On a well
    scaled piano, these problems are just not there for either type of
    tuning when it is well done.

Jim Coleman, Sr.