Re: Re: [Harp-L] tuner

["john" <jjthaden@xxxxxxxxx>]

In spite of recent reports that clinical study subjects report more relief from a $2 sugar pill than a $0.25 sugar pill, I'd like to point out that cheap does not equal ineffective.  Several folks assert the superiority of Peterson and Conn type strobe tuners over digital portables, but has anyone actually observed a discrepancy in the pitch reported by these two types of devices for a particular sound?  Yes, the strobe types give you information on the pitch of higher harmonics (though I'm pretty sure many strobe scope users don't use that information), but are they really better at identifying the pitch of the fundamental?  Can someone with both types please put this to the test?

======= At 2008-06-24, 08:41:04, Tim Moyer wrote: =======

>capt ron wrote:
>>  Where are our harp techs re this thread?
>
>On the topic of inexpensive tuners, I imagine most serious harp techs 
>aren't going to have much of an opinion.  Most probably use an analog 
>strobe tuner, which you can still get on ebay for a few hundred 
>dollars.  I have a Korg OT-12 that I can carry in my pocket when I need 
>something portable, but it pales in comparison.  
>
>I can't imagine trying to tune very much using a $30 tuner.  In that 
>case, I would probably use the tuner to set a reference reed and tune 
>the rest of the harp relative to the reference rather than to the 
>tuner.  
>
>-tim
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
>Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
			

Best regards.				 
john
jjthaden@xxxxxxxxx
2008-06-24