<html> <head> <style></style></head> <body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'> Ron N wrote:<div><pre>On 5/15/2012 9:53 AM, Ron Koval wrote: ><i> Let me create a custom tuning style that should replicate a master </i>><i> tuning - </i> Why? I still need a strictly aural "as refined as possible" tuning that the master tuning would supply. </pre>*******************</div><div>That's why David needs to be in the mix - if he can verify that the Verituner "gets there" to his satisfaction, then the data stream produced would be assumed to be valid.</div><div><br></div><div>*******************</div><div><pre>><i> If we can make this work, it bypasses needing to actually tune the </i>><i> piano, just step through the notes A0-C7 to gather the inharmonicity </i>><i> data and let the Verituner calculate... Shouldn't take more than 10 </i>><i> minutes or so! </i> No, if you're going to try to fake the data, count me out. The whole point is a sampling of real world results. This is exactly why I do my own research when I can, and why I haven't brought this up until now, as I've wondered about this for some years. If we can't do it right, let's just not do it at all. Ron N</pre><pre>****************</pre><pre>Not trying to fake data. If the Verituner calculates a tuning that when</pre><pre>placed on a piano equals a master tuning (not sure anyone's tried yet -</pre><pre>there was one report of a tech using a custom style he developed in the RPT test </pre><pre>and the examiner mentioned that it was the closest ever seen to the master tuning -</pre><pre>within the tuning resolution.) then it should be possible to skip the tuning step, which</pre><pre>introduces both stability and measurement errors into the process...</pre><pre>Ron Koval</pre><pre>chicagoland</pre><pre><br></pre></div> </div></body> </html>