SAT QUESTION

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

Hi Ralph:

Well, here I am again. The Chicago scoring of the Tuneoff gave me a
a very small edge, However the tuning was computed with the RCT, but the
tuning was done primarily with the SAT  even tho' both machines were
present. I used the widest stretch available on the RCT at that time but
relied primarily upon the SAT.

The Orlando Tuneoff was done exclusively with the SAT, but both of my
pianos were tuned to a pure 5ths Equal Temperament. This time Virgil's
strictly aural tuning edged me out slightly. The main thing to learn
from this, I think, is that the two systems used by competent tuners
are practically equal. I don't think it is fair to say that one is
better than the other. So far the Tuneoffs are a tie.

One might say: "Oh, but this shows the superiority of the RCT over the
SAT then, because when Coleman used the RCT, he scored better than when
he used the SAT." This would not be a true statement, because I was very
nervous about using the RCT at that time, and I relied principally upon
the SAT during the Chicago Tuneoff. During another tuneoff where I 
did both of the tunings myself, the piano on which I tuned using the SAT
won handily over the piano on which I used the RCT (197 to 149). 
However, here again, I would say that the machine was not the 
critical thing in that we were primarily judging between two styles of
tuning and in this case the Pure 5ths tuning won. Since I am a 
dealer for SAT's it would be tempting to claim a victory of the SAT over
the RCT, but when it comes to accuracy of the two machines, we can't 
tune as accurately as both machines can indicate. I just happen to 
prefer working with the SAT on a regular basis. I would challenge 
any tuner aurally or visually to tune the same piano twice and have both
tunings score every note within .3 cents if the piano is detuned between
tunings. Any takers? I would have to be very lucky to tune a piano 
aurally and have EVERY note within 1.0 cents of the same notes on 
the other piano. I THINK that if we were to check the records of all of
the Master tunings done on the same brand and size of piano for the
PTG tuning test, there be found variances of more than .3 cents, and 
those tunings were done by committees of CTEs and RPTs as aural tunings.
So, here, my point is that we might be nit-picking 
temperament and stretching accuracy to death.

How does the piano sound when we get through. Generally if the 
unisons are all good, we will say that the piano sounds good unless 
it is merely a PSO.

Jim Coleman, Sr.



On Sun, 9 Nov 1997, ralph m martin wrote:

> Hi Bob
> What you say IS correct. Worthy of mention, though, is that the now
> famous tune-offs were won with an ordinary FAC tuning (with the "A"
> inflated , if memory serves, one cent). If memory DOESN'T serve, I'm
> certain Jim Coleman Sr. will correct me.
> 
> Looking forward to your new program.
> 
> regards
> Ralph Martin
> 
> On Sun, 09 Nov 1997 09:14:49 -0500 Robert Scott <rscott@wwnet.com>
> writes:
> >At 09:35 AM 11/8/97 -0500, Phil Bondi wrote:
> >
> >>..there is no way you can fault an SAT tuning..it is used for testing
> >>potential RPT's..that in itself should be proof enough.
> >
> >  SAT tunings are not used for testing potential RPT's.  The machine
> >is merely used to store a note-by-note tuning that was arrived at
> >aurally.  The FAC tuning generation is not used at all as far
> >as I know.
> >
> >Bob Scott
> >Ann Arbor, Michigan
> >
> >
>