pianotech-digest V1997 #877

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

Hi James:

It is my personal opinion that measured interval tuning is not superior to
properly used FAC tunings. here is my reasoning. In direct interval tuning,
there are two notes to read for every interval. There is the possibility of
error in opposite directions. And then there is the possibility of error in
tuning to the machine, just as is the case with FAC tunings. I like the 
smooth curve of the machine tunings better especially since they utilize
the 4th partial which is a more stable partial. The confusion involved with
using lower partials for intervals like the 5th negates any advantage IMHO.
I would rather have the 5ths wobble a little and lay a good smooth basis in
the center for tuning the upper and lower areas of the piano.

The other major problem with direct interval tuning as with aural tuning is
that the width of the temperament octave may not relate to the general 
curve of the piano's scaling. FAC takes that into consideration at the very
beginning. In aural and direct interval tuning this is discovered later.

Jim Coleman, Sr.

On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, james turner wrote:

> For Jim Coleman
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> Some have mentioned the direct interval tuning method lately with the
> SAT ll.  I have not heard you discuss this method before.  In your
> opinion, how does this compare to the FAC method?  Is the direct
> interval method more accurate?  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> James Turner
>