E.T.D.

[David Ilvedson]

Ron,

I don't believe the SAT, Verituner listen to lower partials/fundemental at all do they?  I believe they are using upper partials for all measuring...?

David I.



----- Original message ---------------------------------------->
From: Ron Koval <drwoodwind@hotmail.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Received: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 19:20:44 +0000
Subject: Re: E.T.D.

>Some random thoughts about the "tuning calculators"

>I see three basic types of tuning machines out there.

>1.  flat liners: most of the needle-type, along with the basic strobe 
>tuners.  These (mostly) will read in equal temperament only and have varying 
>precision, listening to the fundamental.  There is no provision for 
>inharmonicity and stretch. (Though they can be used for piano work, even a 
>cheap one has value for a beginning aural tuner to avoid major blunders in 
>the temperament octave.)

>2.  Template tuners:  Korg Mt-1200, Yamaha tuner, the new Peterson strobe..  
>These tuners have various piano stretches loaded in.  Pretty much a 
>crapshoot if the generic curve will fit the piano.  Still of value in piano 
>work, used everyday by many, though set-up to read the fundamental only.  
>(Not sure about the Yamaha)


>3.  Sampling tuners:  SAT, Tunelab, RCT, Verituner.  All have some ablility 
>to "listen" to sample notes and extrapolate a tuning, filling in the blanks 
>using math. Different partials are chosen to read for different parts of the 
>piano.  (Verituner uses many at once)

>Here's where it gets interesting.  I've been doing a bunch of inharmonicity 
>research.  It's not the upper partials that get wilder, it's the lower ones, 
>as you progress down into the wound strings that get unpredictable.  So, 
>depending on which partial is chosen to be tuned to a smooth curve, the 
>resultant tuning will be different with each machine.  I'm always amazed 
>that people say there isn't any difference between the tunings calculated by 
>the different machines. In the tests I've done, there are many different 
>tuning curves generated by these machines.  Maybe people mean that the end 
>result sounds ok using the different gear. (allright, that's something 
>different) Using the fundamental only pretty much forces the upper partials 
>into a randomized mess, so with the more basic tuners, it's important to 
>know how to check the upper partials.

>I guess it really comes down to what you expect from a machine.  If you want 
>the best tuning possible generated, you'd be best off with a sampling 
>machine. With the amound of non-linear partial stuff in the wound strings 
>I've been measuring, I'd go with the one that samples the most notes.  If, 
>however, you're just looking for something to get the temperament close, get 
>a needle tuner (or the new mini-strobe).  Like research?  One of the 
>computer-based ones can be informative, with graphs, charts and things.  
>Looking for maximum battery life with a proven track record- then go with a 
>SAT.

>These ramblings help any?

>Ron Koval
>Chicagoland





>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com