[CAUT] String Coupling / SB and Bridge stiffness...and maybe Pure Sound

[Ed Sutton]

As I understand it, Tunic's inventor strongly urges tuning the unisons 
string-by-string with his ETD program. Kent Swafford has stated he believes 
this is significant. Why?

Again I will ask you: once two strings have coupled, how will you tell what 
is the difference between the two uncoupled frequencies?

I also have heard plenty of descriptions of legendary tunings. I do not 
doubt that the world's greatest tuner produced the world's greatest tuning. 
I have not heard it, or seen measurements.

ES

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] String Coupling / SB and Bridge stiffness...and maybe 
Pure Sound


> Ed
>
> I dont see how string coupling gets into how Tunic works.  Nor would I 
> accept the idea that the <<unusually clear sound>> you mention below is 
> not something that aural tuners are capable of producing. Personally, I 
> reject utterly the suggestion that any machine can out perform the well 
> trained and very experience aural tuner aside from being able to more 
> precisely identify whether a given string is vibrating at a given 
> frequency... and even there there is very good grounds for questioning.
>
> Tunic works because of the algorithm behind it, which is in most 
> simplistic sense a perfect 12ths priority tunings based on math that 
> utilizes 3:1 partial matching. This is then imposed onto a pianos 
> inharmonicity and is doable aurally just like any other stretch is given 
> the appropriate aural tests. In essence it is the stretch itself that 
> works.  Even so... this can be tweaked aurally to enhance the end result, 
> as any ETD generated tuning can be. There is to much para inharmonicity 
> for things to be otherwise, even in the higher regions of the piano, and 
> no ETD per date has either the hardware processing capability to take this 
> into consideration or an algorithm for dealing with it.
>
> I've heard plenty of discriptions of Virgils tunings, and some of his more 
> experienced followers that fit this <<unusually clear sound>>. IMV this 
> has nothing to do with approaching anything like a "mathematically perfect 
> unison".  It has to do with getting closer to an aurally clear unison 
> within a greater perspective of that unisons realtionships with all other 
> unisons in a piano.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
>    Kent Swafford, are you there?
>
>    Consider this line of thought:
>
>    Assuming that all unisons involve some degree of coupling, then it
>    is not possible to tune a "mathematically perfect" unison by usual
>    aural methods because, as the tuned note approaches unison, when it
>    passes the "coupling threshold" it will couple with the other
>    string(s) without having to be the exact matching frequency.
>    (Listening high up the partials would help.)
>
>    Since, with Tunic Pure Sound, you are tuning each string of the
>    unison "solitary," to match the ETD display, is it possible that the
>    three strings, when tuned this way, are closer to a "mathematically
>    perfect" unison that an aurally tuned unison can be?
>
>    Can this account for the unusually clear sound of certain very
>    widely spaced chords on the Hailun piano you tuned with Tunic?
>
>    Ed Sutton
>
>