I would like to hear who well Virgil tunes a spinet, not a Steinway D. To me, that is a far better test. Any chance of another match using poorly scaled pianos? Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote: > Hi Mike: > > You wrote: > > "Jim, How much better is the sensitivity and filtering in the SAT II as > compared to the SOT? > > Mike Musial RPT > Reedsville Pa > > The Sot depended upon Resistor/Capacitor circuitry to approach the tempered > note to note relationships. The big improvement of the SATs over SOTs is > that the relationships are maintained mathmatically and are not subject to > drift. The filtering system of the new SAT III is completely different and > is an additional improvement. The precision and stability of the SAT III > has also been improved. > > When the SOTs came out, many of us who were already aural tuners noted that > we could make improvements upon the tunings which the machine provided. > Since the advent of the SATs, I no longer believe that when considering only > the temperament area of a well scaled piano. For the last 10 years of > teaching in PTG classes, Have repeatedly demonstrated that when I had tuned > a temperament by machine and found some interval which could be improved, > I would go back and both notes of the interval noted to not quite fit, and > in every instance, I was able to tune a little more accurately with the > machine and perfectly satisfy the aural requirements. This has given me the > audacity to go up against such a stellar light as Virgil Smith. As I have > reported before, Virgil and I have been discussing his theories for years. > We disagree agreeably. However, the man really tune. People who listened to > our first round made comments like "the purity and beauty of the tunings > just gave me 'goose bumps'." Virgil listens to piano tones in a different > way than I do. Just a few weeks ago he called me to suggest that I must > really hear the way he does but I just don't want to admit it. No, I have > tried to hear like he does, but the discrete partials are just so prominent > that I apparently miss what he hears. I no longer argue with him that he > does indeed listen to partials, but he tunes with such precision in the > temperament area I know it is based on some reality. His claim to listen to > the "whole" tone is beyond my knowledge in piano tuning, but I do relate to > it in singing, violin playing. I just try to sing and play in tune, I do not > listen to partials when I am singing. Orchestra members when playing with > a piano Concerto have to adjust their intonation with the piano (which has > inharmonic partials and they don't), so, I think they do some kind of > amalgamation (listening to the whole tone) just as Virgil says he does. I > have been to many of his classes and by and large the entire class is > greatly impressed with his ability even though they may not fully understand > his theory. Just remember, people for quite awhile did not understand > Einstein either. Many of us still don't. I understand some of it enough to > disagree with only certain parts. I suppose that is where I am with Virgil. > > Mike, I'm sorry, some of this did not apply to your question, but I was > hoping answer some of the questions of Dave Pitsch at the same time. > > Jim Coleman, Sr.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC