Verituner users

[Isaac OLEG SIMANOT]

Hello :

" I believe that Jim Coleman recently posted that after tuning
> a piano with the Verituner, he switched on the SAT III and found that the
> tuning stopped the lights on all the notes. So, how much the outputs of
these
> two machines  differ, in cents, seems to be something not yet defined.
Anybody
> measure a  SAT tuning with the Verituner and would like to post the
divergences?  "

So I may understand the message as this (if I read correctly) :
The VT100 is (finally) as good as the SATIII .

Unfortunately, with all due respect I have with Mr. Coleman, which had
always been fair with me when I asked him something, I don't believe that at
all.

What I believe is that I can stop the light if I want on any note near the
correct pitch because I play it in a way the lights will not move too much .
In respect with the fluctuation of pitch on any piano, depending the way I
play, I can have the visual device stopped at a moment or another.
And when I am in a hurry, but I want to think that the "lights" stopped, I
will stop it not consciously so I can go a step higher...

When it came to compare the "tuning curve " between the VT 100 and the other
devices, I can't see how it is possible , or one may compare the same
partial output. As the VT 100 display the 1st partial from A3 to the top the
result in cts is of course different. The other partials displayed on the
left of the screen I don't use, generally, only if I suspects a stretch
error (a sampling error) and it is, when I have sampled while tuning unisons
at the same time, and give false data to the machine.

If it is of some interest to you here are the 1st partial numbers of

 a C3 Yamaha, a U1 (recent), a Steinway B (Hamburg)

A3   - 2.41       -2.12		-2.48
A#3  - 2.36		-2.16		-2.37
B3   - 2.27		-2.11		-1.78
C4    -2.17		-2.00		-1.69
C#4   -2.08		-1.77		-2.01
D4    -2.01		-1.84		-1.91
D#    -1.86		-1.53		-1.90
E4    -1.68		-1.49		-1.76
F4    -1.49		-1.24		-1.56
F#4   -1.22		-0.93		-1.31
G4    -0.84		-0.63		-0.95
G#4   -0.41		-0.30		-0.52
A4     0.00		 0.00		0
A#4   -0.07		-0.11		-0.23
B4    -0.09		-0.17		+0.15
C5    -0.08		+0.02		+0.03
C#5   -0.01		-0.08		-0.20
D5    +0.09		+0.13		-0.04
D#5   +0.21		+0.29		-0.01
E5    +0.43		+0.48		+0.39
F5    +0.68		+0.73		+0.39
F#5   +0.90		+0.94		+0.86
G5    +1.17		+1.23		+3.12
G#5   +1.53		+1.55		+3.49
A5    +1.82		+1.79		+1.93

And all the irregularities you see (if the data is readable after
transmission), lend in the direction of the correction that we do naturally
to have a good match between the lower and higher octaves.

I strongly doubt that the 3, 2nd and 3d partials of these curves will be as
aligned as with the computation of other ETD. We will have a file output on
PC soon, then it will be easy to graph and compare.

Sorry if my writings seems a bit provocative, but I can't understand that
people can't make the difference between something which is basically an
electronic tuner's ear, and systems based on assumptions of a certain level
of perfection in inharmonicity, which is none existent.

Sorry too for my English, gentlemen.

Regards.

Isaac OLEG


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]De la part
> de A440A@AOL.COM
> Envoye : vendredi 22 fevrier 2002 19:31
> A : pianotech@ptg.org
> Objet : Re: Verituner users
>
>
> Greg writes:
> >I would still love to see a calculated
> >tuning from each program from samples or measurements from the same piano
> >and
> >compare the values side by side. It might be interesting don't you think?
>
>     I believe that Jim Coleman recently posted that after tuning
> a piano with
> the Verituner, he switched on the SAT III and found that the
> tuning stopped
> the lights on all the notes. So, how much the outputs of these
> two machines
> differ, in cents, seems to be something not yet defined.  Anybody
> measure a
> SAT tuning with the Verituner and would like to post the divergences?
> Regards,
> Ed Foote RPT
>