Verituner

[Tom Servinsky]

Is it me becoming an older fudder duddy, or are we getting further away from
the art of tuning. I have to tell you, I started out as an aural tuner,
passed my RPT and CTE exams, then started using the SAT, then became
addicted to the darn thing, and now I'm back enjoying aural tuning almost
exclusively.  Except for pitch raising and horrible pianos ( which I rarely
do anymore) the SAT sits in my case. I like it, I understand it, just choose
not to use it. And now with the new computers on the market, find myself
being more baffled on the need for ETD vs. a good ear.
I know, you don't have to explain that the ETDs reduce ear fatigue and all
the essentials they provide. It's just I have fallen in love with aural
tuning all over again and find much more satisfaction at the end of a good
aural tuning.
I am impressed with how the development of the ETDs have become and more
importantly how much wide support they seem to have within the tuning
industry. There was a point, not too long ago, when it was still considered
poo-poo if one stooped to using the Accutuner. Now the market is flooded
with impressive tuning devices with bells and whistles galore.
Back to the Verituner...I have heard nothing but raves of this machine and
find it tempting to fork over the mula for an upgrade.
I would love to road test it for a week
Tom Servinsky,RPT----- Original Message -----
From: <larudee@pacbell.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Verituner


> 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
> > >
>