E.T.D.

[Joe And Penny Goss]

Hi David The verituner listens to up to 6 or 8
Joe Goss
imatunr@srvinet.com
www.mothergoosetools.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: E.T.D.


> 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
>
>