Verituner

[Farrell]

I'm not going to guarantee I am right on with this, but I think I'm real
close. Comments below:

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: <larudee@pacbell.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Verituner


> antares wrote:
>
> > The first tuning with the VT was
> > impressive to say the least and the second tuning was stunning!
>
> Why should there be a discrepancy between the two?

Part of what Antares was describing may be related to the fact that a two
pass tuning should be more precise. But I'm sure what he is also saying is
that when using the VT, let's start a A4. Sound the note and the VT measures
the pitch of all (or at least a bunch) of partials. Go up 1/2 step & sound
note. The VT measures all partials again, and immediately starts calculating
an appropriate stretch for the piano - at least for those two notes, based
on several partials (I believe you may be able to tell the VT which ones to
concentrate on). You sound the next note, etc., etc.

> > I personally can not achieve that despite all my training and talent.
>
> Why would VT be so much better if it is using the same procedure as an
aural
> tuning?

Continuing from above. I believe the VT can potentially do a "better job"
than an aural tuner because the average aural tuner may listen to one or two
sets of partials when tuning any given note - and they are tuning that note
to maybe an octave or a double octave and maybe checking a few other
intervals. The VT is considering every note it has heard so far on the
piano. When you tune A6 with the VT, it is considering what the octave,
double octave, thirds, fifths, fourths, sixths, tenths, seventeenths, etc.
will sound like and it strikes a balance with them all. Using the VT is like
comparing the note you are trying to tune with every imaginable interval on
the piano - and also a whole bunch of partials. It will do a better job on
the second pass because it has every note and every partial on the piano in
its memory, so now when you tune A#4 the VT in not only considering how it
will interact with A4, but it will also consider every other note on the
piano. I don't know all the ins and outs of this thing yet, so maybe is
limits how many notes or intervals or partials it considers, but I am quite
sure it considers a whole big bunch of them - likely more than any aural
tuner would normally do.

> > I also tune with the VT in the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. If you have
tuned
> > a STW D a number of times with the VT the instrument will sound like
> > something you have never heard before, believe me! All intervals are
crystal
> > clear and incredibly even.
>
> I value your description of the results, but what is there in the VT
procedure
> that would account for that?

As I said above. It is not your procedure that does it, but the fact that
the VT considers all (or many) notes and partials on the piano for each new
note you tune. My SAT III considers the difference between two partials for
each of three notes and calculates all the notes from that. Once you have
gone through the piano once with the VT, it uses a whole bunch of partials
from 88 notes to calculate each note you tune.

Does all this make sense? I may be off with some of my details, but I am
quite sure the concept is there.

> Paul Larudee
>