Verituner

[larudee@pacbell.net]

Terry,

That's a great explanation.  It makes a lot of sense and rings true even if it's
not from the source (manufacturer).  So why is VT promoting its product on the
basis of note recognition, no need to sample beforehand and other convenience
features?  They claim that it's "better than your gear," but never provide an
explanation like the one you just did to justify their claim.

Paul

Farrell wrote:

> 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
> >