Verituner

[Farrell]

> Yes you have... think about it... no one has made the claim that they
simply tune
> by the machine....noooononononoono...

The key here is that no one has made the claim - but it doesn't mean that
many of them don't tune by machine alone. I have gotten the impression that
some significant percentage of techs that use machines are indeed machine
tuners, and machine tuners only. With reference to the SAT, there are at
least four major ways to use the machine:

1) Measure FAC improperly, calculate a tuning, and tune each string (or one
string of each note) to what the SAT suggests.

2) Measure FAC, calculate a tuning, and tune each string (or one string of
each note) to what the SAT suggests.

3) Measure FAC, calculate a tuning, use appropriate aural tests while tuning
to make adjustments to the calculated program so that it produces a tuning
that meets with approval from your aural testing (this is what I do - I must
admit, I am at the elementary end of this approach).

4) Or use the SAT in a manual mode (with or without a calculated tuning as a
framework) where you basically do all you would normally do during an aural
tuning, but instead of aural only, you measure intervals and such with the
SAT also. I believe it is potentially a more precise way of doing what is
really like an aural-only tuning. This approach, I believe, is the most
basic description of how the Jim Colemans of the world use the SAT. This is
what I call high-level ETD/aural tuning. They use the SAT like Rembrant
(sp?) used paint. It ceases to be a machine and becomes an electronic
extension of their fingers which is wired directly to their brain.

I think that unfortunately, there are some folks that fall into category #1.
Some that use approach #2 will get a good tuning on a well-scaled piano
(but, depending on the piano scaling, is likely to be somewhere short of a
very good aural tuning) and a deficient tuning on a poor piano. I think
approach #3, when done properly, can approach or equal any good aural tuning
on a good piano. I think it can produce a good tuning on a poor piano, but
likely there will be areas (like the bass break) where a heavy dose of good
aural treatment will outpace it for sure. Done properly, approach #4 should
yield the same result on any piano that a very good aural-only tuning would
do - perhaps (arguably) better because of a potential precision benefit and
the old "two heads are better than one" philosophy.

I would like to find out how many folks fall into the various categories - I
bet if we did a survey, we would find no one in category #1 or #2!

That's my take. I could be wrong.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brekne" <rbrekne@broadpark.no>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Verituner


>
>
> 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
>
>