SAT & RCT

[dpitsch]

Keith, yes I have meet and discussed this topic with Al Sanderson and Jim Coleman
Sr.  I remember we were all seated around a table at a restaurant in Denver, CO.
As we were talking, someone's watch alarm went off.  I was the only one in the
entire group of 8-9 PTG members to hear it.  I requested the owner to turn the
alarm off.  It pretty much cued me in as to the disverse aural sensitivity amongst
tuners, even those who are acknowledged to be the best.  I will record your name
in my TOONERS book.

As to Dean Reyburn/Mitch Kiel, I am looking forward to meeting them, and am quite
sure I will have many questions that I will want to be answered.  The lack of
owning a MAC powerbook (or more accurately, being unwilling to purchase one) is
now a problem that can be answered with the Windows version of RCT.  I look
forward to learning this software, and seeing the results.  I am open minded, even
though it may not come across that way.  Just call me "Doubting David".  I have
never seen aural quality results that satisfied my ears just using an ETD without
using any aural checks and making compensations.   The uniqueness that makes every
piano and technician different is what I am basing my doubts upon.

I look at tuning the same way I look at voicing.  One technician says a piano is
voiced properly, another says it still needs more work.  We are different, God
made us that way, and I am very glad for this difference.

Keith McGavern wrote:

> >...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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>