SAT & RCT

[Keith McGavern]

>...Hey, I'm proud to be in your TOONERS club. Ha Ha.
>
>Your friend, Jim Coleman, Sr.

Right there with Jim, Sr.  Wouldn't have it any other way.

I wonder Dave, (David Pitsch) if you have ever met Dr. Sanderson, Dean
Reyburn, and/or MItch Kiel, and have actually discussed these matters with
them, or have attended any of their classes and actually taken time to
study their wonderful inventions and software?

I also felt Don Mannino's post was rather supportive when it comes to the
"machine".  At least, that's how I interpreted it.

Keith A. McGavern
kam544@ionet.net
Registered Piano Technician
Oklahoma Chapter 731
Piano Technicians Guild
USA

>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
>>
>>
>>
>>