SAT & RCT

[Joe & Penny Goss]

Steve who, generated how?
Joe Goss  imatunr@primenet.com

----------
> From: Ralph Martin <rmartinjr@email.msn.com>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: SAT & RCT
> Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 3:34 PM
> 
> Hi Don
> Steve sells computer generated tunings for most quality pianos which
can,of
> course, be programmed into a SAT. I've tried a few and find them to be
> great.....in keeping with my personal taste. Judging form the way you
> describe your preferences for octave tuning, you'd probably really like
> them.
> Why not try a few?
> 
> regards
> Ralph Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Mannino <DonMannino@worldnet.att.net>
> To: 'pianotech@ptg.org' <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:10 PM
> Subject: RE: SAT & RCT
> 
> 
> >James Turner wrote:
> >
> >>>What puzzels me is how a machine can measure only 3 or 6 notes and
> compute an optimum tuning for a piano<<
> >
> >James,
> >
> >I like to think of it as a choice between two different compromises:
> >- The machine creates a smooth compromise using the sampled notes, and
it
> is dead-on accurate at calculating those compromised notes.
> >- The ear hears each note individually so is able to adjust to the small
> inharmonicity differences from note to note, but is not nearly as
accurate
> at consistently setting octaves to the same stretch amount from note to
> note. Variations of a few 10ths of a cent are normal.
> >
> >So, if the aural tuner were perfectly accurate (a big if) the tuning
would
> measure a little uneven and would look bumpy if your charted it. The
> electronic tuning charts perfectly smoothly, but doesn't take into
account
> the minute variations in inharmonicity from string to string.
> >
> >If a tuner is conscientious, both tuning methods end up well within
> acceptable tolerances from the musicians point of view. The key using
either
> tuning method is the care taken by the tuner.
> >
> >I understand that Steven Fairchild came up with a system for true Aural
> style tuning on a computer, and it was much too cumbersome to use in
> practice. Perhaps computers have advanced to the point where this could
be
> practical to do real-time as one tuned - but would it actually sound
better
> than the calculated tuning? My guess is that it wouldn't be any different
to
> the musical ear, but who knows until we try?
> >
> >Don Mannino
> >
> >
> >----------
> >From: james turner[SMTP:JTTUNER@webtv.net]
> >Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:04 AM
> >To: pianotech@ptg.org
> >Subject: SAT & RCT
> >
> >Friends,
> >
> >I have been thinking about getting the SAT lll, RCT or the TuneLab.
> >When one tunes aurally, we listen to every note on the piano, intervals
> >and so on.  What puzzels me is how a machine can measure only 3 or 6
> >notes and compute an optimum tuning for a piano.  It seems to me that
> >for any machine or computer to create a really good tuning, it would
> >have to sample many more notes than 3 or 6?  Wouldn't a machine that
> >sampled every note on the piano be a better tuning? Isn't this what
> >aural tuning does to a degree?
> >Thanks,
> >Jim Turner
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
>