Verituner

[Richard Brekne]

A440A@AOL.COM wrote:

>
>       If someone wants to make the point that a superior tuning can be had
> with ears alone, as opposed to ears and a machine, I certainly need to hear
> their results before I believe it, and I ain't heard it yet.

Yes you have... think about it... no one has made the claim that they simply tune
by the machine....noooononononoono... they say we tune first with the machine and
then refine with the ears... the machine is just an aid... another tool.

>     It is interesting that Virgil Smith, (whose work, by any of our
> standards,  represents an ultimate aural tuning) produces a tuning that is
> equivalent to a machine tuning from Jim Coleman.

Again... Jim refines with his ears... always has. I tell you what. You do a tuning
showdown with Virgil and his ears, against Jim and his machine one more time...
but this time you deafen Jims ears for the duration of the job. No fair taking off
the cuffs for unisons either.. Then lets look at the results. That would be human
ears against machine. When I state the ears can do a better job then the machine
it is from this perspective. And if that perspective didnt have some real validity
then all talk of Verituner's algorithm for determining a tuning being better then
previous machines would be redundant at best. Are we ready to simply discount all
these claims by some of our respected colleagues so quickly ? Are they hearing
wrongly.. perhaps just imagining ?? Wishfull thinking perhaps ??

I find it a matter of course that the human ear can learn to solve the puzzle of a
tuning better then any algorithm based on a single partial calculated curve based
on the inharmonicity in a few sampled notes. That being said I also find it a
matter of course that a machine is less apt to be confused by what it is hearing
then a human ear is. So of course it should suprise no one that judicious use of
both can result in a great tuning.

My point is simply that the ear can learn to out tune the machine (when the
machine stands alone) and I stand by that, and I fail to see that it has ever been
demonstrated otherwise.

> If whole roomfuls of piano
> techs are evenly divided on which of these two approaches are are better, are
> the differences any more than academic??  I think not.
> So, a valid decision to forego a machine may be made for reasons other
> than the results, but don't tell me that one or another is superior.

Within the scope  my point was made,  I sure will. But if you are talking about a
machine aided ear tuning then I will be in aggreement with you. I think we seem to
be forgetting there are three types of tunings in this discussion,,, not two. Ear
tunings, Machine aided ear tunings, and Machine tunings.  Between ear and machine
alone.... the ear can indeed learn to be better.

>
> Ed Foote RPT

And now back to your regular programming.

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no