Tuning exam unisons, was: Odd partial

[Jim]

Dear Jim:

I would like to answer some of the concerns expressed below.

I believe I can say this without fear of contradiction: "I have
tuned more unisons with the SAT than anyone.  In Dearborn, I tuned
my little GH1 grand totally with the machine, except Bass unison (which I
do not recommend).  Many people remarked about how clean the unisons
were.  My intention at the Chicago Tuneoff was to do the same.  If I had
used the SAT only I would have done the same. To give Dean's new machine a
little exposure, I used both machines, RCT and SAT.  Tuning unisons with
the RCT slows me down a bit, so I elected to tune unisons from B2-D5
by ear and all those above with the two machines.  My unisons were a
little better than Virgil's were and I think that mainly accounted
for the difference in the voting. The critical treble unisons were all
tuned by machine and they held fairly well.

The concern about machine unisons being inferior to aural unisons is just
not borne out in my experience.  Unless there is a diameter difference
among the three strings, there is not likely to be any difference in the
inharmonicity of the three strings, unless there is some anomaly at
either termination.  Now, with Bass strings, that is entirely another
matter.  Bass strings can have a great deal of difference in how tightly
the strings are wound, what the unwrapped lengths are at each end, and
perhaps other things not yet identified.  I just wish everyone "good
luck" with them.  We specify larger Grands for our testing to avoid
having to check unisons that are wound and for not having to worry
about irregular scaling for temperament purposes.

Jim Coleman, Sr.

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 JIMRPT@aol.com wrote:

> Bob D., RV Carr, & List;
> " then you will find that they actually sound worse when you tune them to the
> box."
> "When I tune the unisons, which partial should I tune?"
>
> I know theoritically it makes a difference what you are tuning to, but if the
> unision is not pure, beatless, (or rolling ever so slightly to add that
> feeling of depth for the croissant crowd) whatever; does it make a difference
> what partial you are tuning to? That is to say, if it doesn't sound good,
> shouldn't we say partials be dammned and make it sound good? And should not
> the sound of the unision score higher on the exam  when it sounds good,
> rather then when it matches the criteria of partials for exam purposes and
> sounds bad (relatively)?
>
>   I'm not challenging Robert Carr, whom I defer to totally in the tuning
> realm, or Bob Davis, just questioning the dependance on partials as measured
> by a box as oppossed to the ear in the exam unision context. Perhaps I just
> don't understand, which is probably the case.
> Jim Bryant (FL)