Verituner

[Tom Servinsky]

My accountant is wonderful at mathematics...brilliant. But he uses a
calculator for my taxes and to this date I haven't been audited.
As long as the job gets done and everyone's happy...it don't mean a hill of
beans how you get there.Now if the accountant despises the use of a
calculator and finds more enjoyment doing my taxes by hand, and I still
don't get audited...I'll still be a happy camper.
Moral..if it isn't broke don't fix it.  If you get great results using the
machine and it works for you and your customers...go for it.  However, EDT
tuning might be, in the long run of things, not your bag as it deminishes
the challenge of aural tuning and it can reduce your "actual" tuning
abilities.Hmmmmm
Realize there is growing segment of techs putting away the EDTS and
rediscovering the enjoyment of aural tuning.
  Tom Servinsky,RPT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: Verituner


> > 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
> >
> >
>