The Great Tune-Off

[Jim]

Dear John:

1. I did not write down the numbers. Dean Reyburn  did and added the
   results of the two sessions. Totals were: Coleman 306 Smith 238,
   undecided 120.  There will be a full report in the Jan Journal.

2. I used the Cybertuner to determine which width of scale I
   preferred. I then midied it to the SAT so that I could use both
   machines.  I utilized the SAT first and then refined with the RCT.
   In the top octave, the SAT was more useful to me.  In another
   general post I explained that I tuned unisons by ear except in the
   treble.  Occasionally I would play some 3rd 10th 17 tests just to
   keep everyone awake (a little dessert here and there).  I did not
   utilize these tests in determining the tuning.  It was strictly with
   the program.  After all, that's what we were trying to test.  I
   also played octaves, 12ths, double octaves, 19ths, triple octaves
   and a few quad octaves just to show on the display that they were all
   well balanced (I'm a showoff).  I did not rely on any aural tests.
   I just used them for the benefit of the audience.

3. I only used the No. 8 stretch tuning produced by the CyberTuner.
   I can program the Sat to do something quite similar.  I'll write an
   article on this later.

4. Steve Brady was there specifically to cover the "happening" as Roger
   Weisensteiner calls it.

Jim Coleman, Sr.


On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 jpiesik@arinc.com wrote:

>      Hi Jim,
>
>      There are a few areas that are of further interest to me (and maybe
>      others) regarding The Great Tune-Off.  They are as follows:
>
>      1.  What were the exact results of the voting, i.e., how many votes
>      for the aural tuning, how many votes for the electronic tuning, and
>      how many votes were undecided?  This is very important statistical
>      data that helps us understand the results ("a 45-55 percent split"
>      doesn't tell us much).
>
>      2.  How did you use the electronic devices to obtain your tuning?  Did
>      you rely more on the SAT or the RCT?  Did you favor either the SAT or
>      RCT in any one section of the piano?  Which areas, if any, did you
>      tune aurally, including unisons?  Did you rely on any aural tests?
>
>      3.  How close was the SAT's FAC tuning to the tuning you ultimately
>      ended up with?
>
>      4.  Will you and Virgil document your procedures and the results in an
>      upcoming Journal article?
>
>      I ask a lot of questions, but that's the fun of these types of
>      experiments - analyzing the bajeebers out of it once the results are
>      in!
>
>      Thanks for humoring me,
>
>      Sincerely,
>
>      John Piesik
>      Piesik's Piano Service
>      San Diego, CA
>      JPIESIK@ARINC.COM
>
>      P.S.  Wish I could've been there for the awesome music!!
>