Original Message:
Sent: 1/22/2026 3:09:00 PM
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RE: Cybertuner OTS
Wanted to add, there's a newer feature in PianoMeter that I've been really appreciating, and that's the "tonal energy" display. It's really only useful in the high treble, but that's exactly where most ETD displays struggle the most. It really helps my brain make sense of why the needle is jumping around, in cases when that happens... It's a little hard to put into words, but it does a great job of visually reflecting what's going on with a false beating wire or otherwise unclear note.
The way I use it is to repeatedly play the note at mp-mf, about 3x per second -- frequent enough to "drive" the display to have a clear yellow center at all times. If you've got a single string without any false beats, or a really cleanly tuned unison, you'll get something that looks like the "G7" picture. For something with false beats, or an open unison that's out of tune, you'll get something more like the "G#7" picture -- and typically you'll see the needle wiggle back and forth between the two conflicting pitches. There's something very natural-feeling about it in practice, as though it becomes a synesthetic version of what I'm hearing.
------------------------------
Nathan Monteleone RPT
Fort Worth TX
(817) 675-9494
nbmont@gmail.com
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2026 13:48
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Cybertuner OTS
I started looking at PianoScope and PianoMeter (as well as other ETDs) seriously a couple years ago as part of the Education Committee effort to start creating a curriculum, beginning with tuning and vertical action service. For the beginning tuning curriculum, I thought we needed to include ETDs, and initially just included links to their websites.
That really didn't seem to be sufficient: there needs to be some kind of reasonably objective description of each, avoiding bias but informing. So I gathered all the software and started using it, with the aim of trying to offer such descriptions (an ongoing project). One thing I did was to use two devices - two iPhones of iPhone and iPad - to compare.
The initial impression for PS and PM was that their displays were less stable than I was used to with RCT and earlier with SAT. It took some getting used to, but I came to terms with it and concluded that I was actually getting more information. Less averaging was going on.
To turn to your question about comparing PS and PM:
In terms of display, PS is simpler: a "needle" (vertical line) moves laterally relative to a middle target, and there is a "strobe display" (greyed rectangles in the background) that supplements the pitch display. The strobe is "more reliable" in general in terms of refining whether you are spot on or shaded sharp or flat. The needle is somewhat more jumpy in many instance.. Sometimes the strobes move one way, then shift to the other. Generally speaking, when jumpiness or inconsistency occurs I can hear lack of clarity in the tone of one sort or another
PM's display is unique in that it shows multiple partials at once, as many as four in the lower regions, reducing to just the first partial in the top treble. It can be disconcerting, as they aren't always synced - though when they aren't, I can generally hear a lack of clarity. The display is circular, with a needle that gives an average of all partials, and "strobe like" circles of moving rectangles behind showing the individual partials. The needle can be somewhat jumpy.
For both displays, my initial reaction was negative, as I have become very accustomed to the elegance of the RCT display, with its sequence of side to side, rotation, blush. It was a learning curve to adapt to what appears to be less certainty, but, OTOH, the "certainty" of the RCT display often requires a good bit of "judgement" : we begin to accept that if we can't get steady full blush, we will accept a flash of full blush at some point within the first half second or so.
You will see the same thing in both PS and PM, the moment it is all centered. How short is that moment? At what point in the decay? Both PS and PM require more "interpretation over time" within the window of maybe 1/8 - 1/2 second of attack. RCT does that for you, kind of, but PS and PM present more information so that you can make the judgment yourself.
PS has a lot "under the hood," both in terms of being able to customize how it calculates a tuning and in additional features. There is a good bit of a learning curve to access all its features (which require menus within menus to access), but the documentation is well-written and clear. PM is a leaner program, with fewer additional features, meaning it also has an easier interface to learn (Anthony Willey initially called it Easy Piano Tuner, intending it to be something you could just pick up and use, and he has kept that philosophy).
Both have options that include the default "balanced" as well as octaves, twelfths, fifths and 19ths - meaning that there will be a priority on making that chosen interval closer to pure - IOW a kind of a stretch choice. PS has quite a bit of additional customization. Both have libraries of temperaments (PS's is larger).
Tuning with one and observing the other with two devices, same tuning style, mostly they track very closely. Occasionally I see discrepancies in the vicinity of one cent in a particular range, but I haven't had the time or inclination to investigate.
PS requires playing every note as a starting point (it takes only 1 second or so per note). That data is stored permanently, and can be used to create whatever style or temperament you select.
PM suggests playing at least eight notes across the range initially, then starting to tune. It will read and continue to recalculate in the background while you tune - or you can play all the notes first if you like. You can lock the reading function when you choose. This is also stored as data for the particular piano.
My volume of tunings is way down these days, but I find I use PianoMeter most of the time. I like its simplicity. I admire very much what Frank Illenberger has done over the past few years, constantly adding features and tweaking functionality. If I were doing more tuning, I would probably spend the time to learn and experiment with more of what it has to offer.
Both offer free demo, so try them out.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it." Gide
Original Message:
Sent: 1/22/2026 9:13:00 AM
From: Norman Vesprini
Subject: RE: Cybertuner OTS
Fred:
Are you willing to share a few pros/cons of Pianoscope and PianoMeter? I'm happy with RCT (which I've used for four years), but the low price to try these two apps pique my interest. I'm not asking you to suggest one over the other per se, but perhaps share a couple things you like/prefer about each (not only tuning result but also user experience).
Thanks!
Norman
------------------------------
Norman Vesprini RPT
Piano Technology Program Manager
Notre Dame IN
(574) 631-3021
Original Message:
Sent: 01-21-2026 12:33
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Cybertuner OTS
My own approach has always aimed at maximizing alignment/coincidence of partials, or, to put it another way, minimizing entropy. I found that the Accutuner had serious problems in that regard, and, for example, needed considerable alteration upward in octaves 5 through 7 (bass was variable).
RCT was considerably better, but still required a good bit of customization for the first couple decades I used it. Gradually I found that OTS 5 came very close to what I wanted to do. When RCT came out with a P12 style, I compared it to OTS 5 and found them virtually interchangeable (I measured and produced tunings in both styles on a variety of uprights and grands, and compared the offsets directly).
More recently I have abandoned RCT in favor of PianoMeter and PianoScope, both of which directly aim at what I have aimed at as long as I have been tuning: maximum alignment of partials. Both do an excellent job of this, reading all the effective partials of each note and calculating for maximum approach to purity of the slow beating intervals as the baseline. (They also have possibilities of customization).
I think it is high time to abandon the traditional aural criteria of maximizing smoothness in 5th partial beat rate progressions, and in thinking in terms of partial matching of individual octaves. Those criteria simply occur naturally when following the algorithms, with the necessary compromises already made.
That's my take, an unapologetic embrace of technology to produce beautiful sounding pianos. My experience has shown that this works, and works well, on all instruments.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm@comcast
"The cure for boredom is curiosity, and there is no cure for curiosity." Dorothy Parker
Original Message:
Sent: 1/21/2026 8:30:00 AM
From: Gerald Cousins
Subject: Cybertuner OTS
Hi all,
As a traditionally-trained aural tuner working in an institutional environment with a wide range of performance demands, I typically anchor my EDT work with the AccuTuner and then lean on CyberTuner when I need a consistent, repeatable baseline-especially at the start of the semester when the "field‑plowing" tunings need to be efficient and stable.
Now that we're back in session, I find myself curiously interested in what other colleagues are using as their default OTS profiles in CyberTuner, particularly in relation to how the various OTS curves model inharmonicity and distribute partial weighting across the scale.
My understanding is that OTS4 essentially moderates upper‑octave expansion by applying a flatter stretch curve relative to the instrument's measured inharmonicity. In practice, it seems to weight the lower partials more heavily in the treble, which reins in the 2:1 and 4:1 octave targets and keeps the top end from over‑expanding on instruments with higher‑than‑average inharmonicity. That makes it a kind of "institutional compromise" tuning-broadly acceptable across repertoire, from contemporary faculty recitals to early‑music specialists who are sensitive to upper‑partial glare.
By contrast, the more piano‑centric OTS profiles appear to assume a more aggressive inharmonicity model, pushing the upper partial alignment harder to maximize brilliance. These curves seem to favor higher‑order partial matching (e.g., 4:2, 6:3) in the top octaves, which can be great for solo repertoire but can also exaggerate brightness depending on the scale design resulting in challenges of multiple departmental recitals over the weekend.
Where I'm especially curious is how these OTS curves behave on Steinway Ds and Bs across different repertoires, and how others strike a workable compromise for the "average" institutional use case.
For those managing multiple Steinway and Boston instruments across practice rooms, teaching studios, and performance spaces, I'm also wondering whether you standardize on OTS4 or tailor the default OTS to specific faculty and repertoire expectations. And if you do tailor, how do you handle concert prep for student recitals within that framework? I know what I typically do, but I'd love to hear how others navigate this.
Still learning-and trying to keep the "customers" satisfied-as faculty preferences continue to shift.
Thanks in advance for the collective wisdom of the group.
------------------------------
Gerry
Gerald P. Cousins, RPT ~ Director of Piano Service and Resources
West Chester University of PA
gcousins@wcupa.edu
------------------------------