Verituner

[Farrell]

I think what you have identified here is aural intimacy. You value the level
of intimacy you can achieve with the piano that cannot be achieved (or at
least not so readily) when using an ETD. In your post below, just replace
"ETD/SAT" with "lady of the night" and replace "aural tuning" with "dearly
beloved & cherished wife, loving mother of my children, whom I so dearly
adore". I wish my aural skills were better. I would like to experience that
intimacy also.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Servinsky" <tompiano@gate.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Verituner


> 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
> > > >
> >
>