Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum New Member: Greetings/questions (Oh no! ETDs again!)

Greetings to all,

I'm new to this forum, but have been reading for a few weeks. There's lots of good information here and I thank you all for being so willing to share your expertise.

How I got into the field is a very long story that I won't inflict on you. Suffice it to say that about 20yrs ago I had the privilege to study the trade for about two years full-time with a true master. In addition to other positions, he was a concert tuner for the Baldwin factory for several years and was "on the road" with some prominent artists. He taught me well, but I thought I needed to make money another way and have spent the past 20 years in an unrelated field.

I've decided that it's time to "follow my bliss" and become involved in the piano world full time (I'm currently the pianist at my church, teach lessons, etc). My original "master's" son (a lifelong tuner/technician himself) has agreed to act as a mentor.

Sorry to ramble on. One of my questions is regarding electronic tuning devices (ETDs). My original training was the "ear only" method, with tuning starting with C 523.3, then the C an octave below, then the temperament starting with the F to C fifth, etc. While my tuning hammer technique is good, ear tuning is still a challenge and I am considering an ETD as an aid. When I was studying, the Conn was the only choice. Now there are hundreds, but probably only a few that are any good. My initial research seems to indicate that the Peterson ST-490 looks good. I'm also considering TuneLab, which gets a lot of positive comments and adds the versatility of a laptop/handheld (I'm a computer guy). I'd really like to find a used Yamaha PT-100, but they seem pretty scarce.

You've got a lot more experience than me. What ETDs should I consider? Bear in mind that my budget is not unlimited. A new SAT III is beyond my means. I see they also offer older reconditioned units. Are they worth it?

Also, I like to read/study. I've been using these books:

Travis, "Let's Tune Up"
White, "Piano Tuning and Allied Arts"
Reblitz, "Piano Servicing, Tuning and Rebuilding" (2nd Ed.)
Fischer, "Piano Tuning"

For current piano information:

Fine, "The Piano Book" (4th Ed, along with 2006/7 Supplement)

History:

Dolge- "Pianos and Their Makers" (interesting and fun to read).

I like the history and I'm also a trained harpsichord and violin maker.

What other books should I consider?

Agian, my thanks for your willingness to share experience and expertise.

Regards,

Glenn

For pianos the Verituner 100 or the RCT 4.0 which is a software program is delivering the best tunings with the note analysis capabilities. I wouldn't consider the Peterson, the Conn or the PT 100 if you are serious. Tune Lab is a slightly cheaper and is very good too. A used SAT II or III would be a fine choice. My SAT I lasted a long time. The SAT if you know how to use it delivers quality tunings.

No one tunes to C much anymore.

Keith, I am curious. Why has tuning from C fallen out of favor?

Hey Glen,

For the latest in technology, the Verituner stands above the crowd - simply by having to make less assumptions about inharmonicity from note to note. The custom style function allows to replicate pretty much any aural approach, or use one created by another user. It's really the only machine I'm comfortable saying that you only need to aurally adjust unisons to get stellar tunings.

Get a used, or discontinued pocket pc (high Mhz..) and purchase the software for a less expensive option.

Ron Koval

Look the number of posts about how to use various ETDs. Then compare them to the number of posts about how to tune aurally. If you want to develop speed, simplicity, and confidence in your tuning, it will be quite evident what you should spend your time on.

Hey Ron, from what I read from someone who was doing a side by side comparison with the RCT 4.0 and the Verituner said the tunings were essentially identical. The verituner is no longer a cut above.

No one tunes to C because until you tune out the piano, you can't be sure where the A will end up. A440 is considered concert or standard pitch in America. Sure it will be close to A440 with the C but with the electronic tuners you can get it closer if not exact. The whole symphony tunes to A440. Even if you don't have a symphoney to play with, the guitar tuners are really accurate and the guitars are in tune instead of being tuned to the piano.

Thank you, Keith. The reason for the question is that commencing with C is the way I learned many years ago. After reading your remark, I wondered if I had been doing something wrong all of those years.

My tuning is exclusively aural. In my years prepping the Steinway D for the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra, I never seemed to have a problem with the A. (I have a rather unorthodox method of temperament which may account for never having the problem.)

Still, what you say makes perfectly good sense. Had I to do it all over again, I would learn via your method. At the very least it lowers the risk of a mistake, particularly for those who are relatively new to the craft.

If you are using a C5 fork instead of an A4 fork, I would not worry about it. With a typical amount of stretch, the stretch at C5 is about 0.58 cents over a no-stretch tuning. Given that some pianos may require a little more and some a little less stretch, the variation in the C5 pitch due to custom stretching is probably no more than 0.3 cents. Now consider that a steel tuning fork changes pitch by 1 cent for every 7 degrees Fahrenheit temperature change, that 0.3 cent variable is equivalent to less than 4 degrees of temperature change. So if you are going to worry about the variations due to starting at C5, you ought to worry just as much about a 4 degree temperature variation. How many of you A4 fork users can guarantee that your fork is always within 4 degrees every time you use it?

Robert Scott
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Bob, Actually I'm just guessing. The the octave width being adjustable and different for each piano would mean if you make the C your fixed starting point, the A can end up in different places. It may not be off enough to make any difference and with your method probably works really well on a good piano. When you come across a piano that is poorly scaled you might end up farther off.

Robert, according to the parameters of the tuning test to be a RPT, you have to know your pitch source and adjust for variences in that source to come up with the correct pitch. Not knowing how to or having a pitch source that is unstable or unreliable is your fault.

Now tell me: If you don't have an A 440 pitch source, how can you claim the piano is at A440.00? That's like looking at a moving car and telling me it's going 54.2 mph. I want to see the radar gun output or I won't believe you.

Worrying about whether a piano is at A 440, A 439.95, or A 440.05 is like worrying about whether your car is doing 25.025 mph in a 25 mph zone. This is how ETDs make it so difficult to tune a piano!

Robert: Thank you. I have never used these expensive electronic tuners, and know nothing about them. The question may seem academic, but do the electronics TOTALLY do away with the problem inherent in a fork? or is there some sort of trade-off?

Keith: Your point is well-taken. Actually switching to an A fork requires no effort. I would use my A435 on rare occasion. It's just a matter of changing an old habit. (That's the real problem.)

Semipro: With this I would agree; though some techs are purists, or perfectionists. It has to be 100% or they feel like they haven't done the job properly. However, to me, trying to achieve perfection in the imperfect instrument that is "the piano," can be an exercise in frustration. Life's too short for this. Sometimes, you just have to let the piano win. And so, A440.05? I can live with that.

Electronics will have their own set of problems. They rely on transducers, which are imperfect in their own right. Without knowing the algorithms of both the software and the hardware and their limitations, it is difficult to know what they are or how good or bad they are. It all boils down to how bad is it before it sounds bad, which is a question that is basic training for an aural tuner, but difficult if not impossible for electronics to decide.

Hi Keith,

"doing a side by side comparison with the RCT 4.0 and the Verituner said the tunings were essentially identical"

Yes, I read that as well.... On a nicely scaled piano "essentially" meaning within a cent or so. Close enough for rough tuning, but the "devil is in the details"!

No matter how "smart" a unit gets, if only a few notes are measured, it has to make assumptions about the notes not measured...

The Verituner is still the only one that is set up to take advantage of full measuring to calculate a musical tuning.

Glenn, I spent years tuning with what was probably almost the same system as yours. I switched to an A fork system based on a series of four contiguous major thirds, F3 to A4. In a fairly short time my results -- even on bad pianos -- was better than what I was able to consistently attain with the previous system, even after years of practice. The reasons why are a fairly deep subject, and probably a bit off the general trend of the thread.

I bring that up because, if the temperament is one reason you're not happy with your aural work, you might consider converting to a different system.

About ETDs:

I agree with what was said above about the Conn, Peterson and Yamaha units -- all to be avoided for serious students.

The issue to me is exactly how you want to use an ETD to get better as an aural tuner. My recommendation on what to buy might be different, depending on the methodology you envision and how seriously you take aural tuning.

One thing to consider with pocket PC formats is that the handheld of today is rapidly being phased out. Will large corporations still intentionally or unintentionally cater to our small niche market, or will pocket PC tuners be forced to stock up on used units? Will ETD software makers adapt to some new device, or return to the laptop? I don't know the answer to those questions; maybe someone here has some thoughts.

You asked about rebuilt Accu-Tuners: My first ETD was a rebuilt SAT I, which I got from Inventronics for $600.00. That was the cheapest unit they had at the time. It was sold with a guarantee and Paul Sanderson was very helpful before and after the sale. You have to e-mail Inventronics for a current list of rebuilt units and prices. Eventually I upgraded to a new SAT III and got a very generous trade-in allowance.

For many things a basically aural tuner (which I am) likes to use an ETD for, I highly recommend the SAT. For one thing, it clearly reads partials in situations where other units I've worked with have trouble.

I also have Verituner 100 ("The Box"). It calculates very musical tunings.

TuneLab could also be a good option for you, particularly considering the cost factor. I've worked with the trial version some, and the program is quite a value.

Jeff

Rule out any ETDs which don't have a microphone (Conn, Peterson, VT100, etc.). There's a huge difference in the modern generation which measure the inharmonicity of each piano individually.

Among the SAT, Verituner, RCT, and TuneLab, your preference may be due to the user interface and/or price. TuneLab hits the mark in both aspects for me, and it has a trial version. You can run it on a laptop or almost any device running Pocket Windows (like some cellphones).

I have links to all of them on my site.

--Cy--

"Rule out any ETDs which don't have a microphone (Conn, Peterson, VT100, etc.). "

That should be PT100... that Yamaha scope? - NOT the VT100, the Verituner "box"...

How would any of them work without a microphone?

I think they all have microphones. Lesser ETDs lack microprocessors which handle the inharmonicity. Some may have microprocessors, but only to control an LCD display and 12-tone temperments.

I have a hard time describing my Verituner 100 as an electronic tuning device. I always introduce my third ear as a tuning computer.

The Conns and Petersons (which Schaff still sells, surprisingly) do not have microphones. They work with "stretch tables" that you enter in, based on the most similar piano to what's in front of you (we get requests here for these tables from time to time).

We owe a great debt to these first primitive tuners, though; it's only through them that people like Dr. Al Sanderson and Bill Garlick, working together, were able to understand what we do when we tune aurally, and to make new devices that measure and compensate for inharmonicity.

--Cy--