ETD unisons

[Farrell]

> Back to how all this affects the orgional thrust of this discussion,,, the
> Verituner... it would seem to me that if one could claim with complete
> validity that the use of the Sat with no help from experience ears to set
a
> tuning on a piano is indecernable from an ear tuning of highest quality,,,

Boy, unless I am missing something BIG, no one has, or no one in their right
mind would, make that claim. Such thinking is totally incorrect. (Hey, am I
sticking my neck out, or what? :-) It would theoretically be possible IF the
piano were scaled with inharmonicity of the targeted partials running right
along the same smooth curve that the SAT might calculate - but that will not
happen in practice - or at least don't hold your breath.

> then any improvement on the Sat at all would be moot to begin with.

It would be, if the above claim were reasonable. But it is not.

> How then
> is is possible that so many (so far without expection of those who have
spoken
> here) can report such an improvement ?

Regarding the Verituner, it samples each and every note tuned, and measures
numerous partials on each note. The Verituner then makes a complex series of
comprimizes among all these data to reportedly come up with a very accurate
tuning, one that reportedly rivals, or comes close to, or whatever, a very
good aural tuning. The SAT measures the inharmonicity between two partials
on each of three notes. If you choose to not modify that calculated tuning
with aural checks, that is all you get. But keep in mind there are many ways
to use the SAT. First of all, it is highly beneficial to modify calculated
tunings with the results of aural checks guiding you. You can also use it in
a manual manner where you never even calculate a tuning - you use it to
measure and match (or whatever) partials of your choice, in the same manner
as the aural-only tuner does.

I think just about anyone would agree that great tunings produced by a
technician using a SAT is the result of either of two things: 1) A lot of
luck AND a good piano; or 2) a significant amount (and maybe a lot) of aural
input.

Terry Farrell

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Brekne" <rbrekne@broadpark.no>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: ETD unisons


> Hi Jim.
>
> And let me start off by saying what a real pleasure I had meeting and
talking
> with you in Reno. You were one of the very few I had time to chat with
being
> tucked away up in the exams room the whole convention. I coulda done lots
> worse :) We had fun helping that dutch fellow prepare didnt we ?
>
> Anyways...what I want to know on this subject matter is if you can
honestly
> say, hand on heart that your tuning in that tuneoff with Virgil way back
when
> would have been the same had you been totally ear-cuffed to put it that
way.
> If you had simply not been able to hear period, would your tuning have
been
> the same ? Also, then what criteria was used to evaluate these two tunings
?
> And what qualifiers are necessary for (if it was so) the experiment to
work
> again ?  An experienced ear tuner ?? a well scaled grand (whatever that
really
> is) ??   Anything else ?
>
> I suppose given all I have learned about these matters this past three
years
> is going to make me a skeptic regardless, as I said in my last post. We
all
> know that evenly spacing any given partial will result in all others being
to
> some degree or not uneven. That in itself should be enough tho there is
more
> to point at for sure.
>
> Now dont anyone get me wrong.. I am not in opposition to the use of
ETD's...
> quite the opposite and that should be clear to anyone who has read all
what I
> have had to say on the matter. I have improved vastly because of my
experience
> with them and continue to do so. But I see no reason to overstate their
value
> either.
>
> In stating I belive its possible to learn to out tune a machine there are
no
> value judgements placed on any tuning method that should disturb anyone.
That
> is unless one finds it disturbing to encourage a continuing learning
process.
>
> Back to how all this affects the orgional thrust of this discussion,,, the
> Verituner... it would seem to me that if one could claim with complete
> validity that the use of the Sat with no help from experience ears to set
a
> tuning on a piano is indecernable from an ear tuning of highest quality,,,
> then any improvement on the Sat at all would be moot to begin with. How
then
> is is possible that so many (so far without expection of those who have
spoken
> here) can report such an improvement ?
>
> I see too many loose threads hanging, to be convinced. Sigh.. I suppose I
will
> remain so (for whatever it is worth) until I get the chance to run a blind
> test myself and see.
>
> My best to you Jim.
> RicB
>
> "Jim Coleman, Sr." wrote:
>
> > Hi Richard:
> >
> > Actually I did tune unisons with the machine in the Tuneoff with Virgil
> > Smith. However, I recommend that ETD users always keep their ears turned
> > on. It is faster to tune unisons by ear, If one is using firm blows, I
> > think better accuracy can be obtained in the mid-range because we can
> > then be listening to high partials during the unison tuning and thereby
> > get better accuracy quicker. Keeping ears turned on is also good quality
> > control for ETD users in case a slight visual error is made. Likewise,
> > the use of an ETD is good quality control for an aural tuning. Many
> > former
> > aural tuners testify that their tuning has improved since the use of
ETDs.
> > It is certainly the case with me. I think it is also true that for those
> > who have learned to tune both ways, it is fun to tune aurally again.
It's
> > just more work. I like to use "the best of both worlds."
> >
> > Incidentally, it is not a good idea to tune Bass unisons with machine
> > only. The two strings are seldom well matched, making perfect unisons
> > impossible either aurally or electronically. Compromise is achieved
> > quicker aurally.
> >
> > Jim Coleman, Sr.
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> Bergen, Norway
> mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
>
>