Tune-off

[dpitsch]

I would like to hear who well Virgil tunes a spinet, not a Steinway D.
To me, that is a far better test.  Any chance of another match using poorly
scaled pianos?

Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote:

> Hi Mike:
>
> You wrote:
>
> "Jim, How much better is the sensitivity and filtering in the SAT II as
> compared to the SOT?
>
> Mike Musial RPT
> Reedsville Pa
>
> The Sot depended upon Resistor/Capacitor circuitry to approach the tempered
> note to note relationships. The big improvement of the SATs over SOTs is
> that the relationships are maintained mathmatically and are not subject to
> drift. The filtering system of the new SAT III is completely different and
> is an additional improvement. The precision and stability of the SAT III
> has also been improved.
>
> When the SOTs came out, many of us who were already aural tuners noted that
> we could make improvements upon the tunings which the machine provided.
> Since the advent of the SATs, I no longer believe that when considering only
> the temperament area of a well scaled piano. For the last 10 years of
> teaching in PTG classes, Have repeatedly demonstrated that when I had tuned
> a temperament by machine and found some interval which could be improved,
> I would go back and both notes of the interval noted to not quite fit, and
> in every instance, I was able to tune a little more accurately with the
> machine and perfectly satisfy the aural requirements. This has given me the
> audacity to go up against such a stellar light as Virgil Smith. As I have
> reported before, Virgil and I have been discussing his theories for years.
> We disagree agreeably. However, the man really tune. People who listened to
> our first round made comments like "the purity and beauty of the tunings
> just gave me 'goose bumps'." Virgil listens to piano tones in a different
> way than I do. Just a few weeks ago he called me to suggest that I must
> really hear the way he does but I just don't want to admit it. No, I have
> tried to hear like he does, but the discrete partials are just so prominent
> that I apparently miss what he hears. I no longer argue with him that he
> does indeed listen to partials, but he tunes with such precision in the
> temperament area I know it is based on some reality. His claim to listen to
> the "whole" tone is beyond my knowledge in piano tuning, but I do relate to
> it in singing, violin playing. I just try to sing and play in tune, I do not
> listen to partials when I am singing. Orchestra members when playing with
> a piano Concerto have to adjust their intonation with the piano (which has
> inharmonic partials and they don't), so, I think they do some kind of
> amalgamation (listening to the whole tone) just as Virgil says he does. I
> have been to many of his classes and by and large the entire class is
> greatly impressed with his ability even though they may not fully understand
> his theory. Just remember, people for quite awhile did not understand
> Einstein either. Many of us still don't. I understand some of it enough to
> disagree with only certain parts. I suppose that is where I am with Virgil.
>
> Mike, I'm sorry, some of this did not apply to your question, but I was
> hoping answer some of the questions of Dave Pitsch at the same time.
>
> Jim Coleman, Sr.