SAT & RCT

[Don]

Hi Jim,

Can I join the *TOONERS* club too!

At 08:54 PM 6/8/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Dave:
>
>I guess I'm a charter member of the TOONERS club. I know you were not online
>when we wrote of the Tuneoffs with Virgil Smith at Chicago and again at
>Orlando. The results showed that there was not a dime's worth of difference
>between his aural tuning and my machine tuning. Well, I confess, I might 
>have listened just a little bit, but I didn't cheat and change anything. I
>even tuned all the treble unisons with the machine. RCT in Chicago and SAT
>in Orlando. I barely beat him in Chicago and he barely beat me in Orlando.
>Many people wrote on their ballots that it was difficult to tell which they
>liked the best. These were all piano technicians.
>
>Hey, I'm proud to be in your TOONERS club. Ha Ha.
>
>Your friend, Jim Coleman, Sr.
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, dpitsch wrote:
>
>> Right on Don.  Any technician who thinks he can measure 3-6 notes and then 
>> get the best possible tuning a piano can get falls into my 
>> classification of a "TOONER".  The results are far inferior to a good aural
>> tuning, or as I do it, a combination of aural and electronic tuning.  
>> I have proven this point many times, and it is easy to show using the 
>> machines (SAT or RCT) themselves  that the results are an educated
>> guess at best.  Ever wonder how 12 different scaled pianos ranging from
>> small grands to studios can all have the same "stretch number"?  
>> Doesn't this seem strange that such different scaled pianos are all 
>> suppose to get the same temperament, let alone the same tuning? > 
>> Don Mannino wrote:
>> 
>> > 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
Regards, Don