Beating a dead horse? Tuner accuracy....come on!

[Guitarmaniac64]

I find it odd that people must have a "tuner" as NO gtr will ever be in tune unless you have a TT neck gtr which b.t.w is not in tune..hell not even a Piano is in tune

The TT neck is just better than a reguler gtr with strait frets..

 

When i grow up a tuner was very rare we have tuning fork or pitchpipes but most of the time we just tune to some instrument in the band most often the bass as that didnt go out of tune as easely as a gtr

 

If you tune a gtr to a tuner it will NOT i repeat NOT be in tune..

 

Tune the high E-string to E using an accurate tuner i recommend a strobe tuner like Peterson or Sonic Research Turbo tuner (Do not use Helix for what i read in this post)

Or a tunig fork or a pitch pipe but then you ears will be the judge so its maybe not what most people should use..

 

Then use the 5th fret on the B string and tune the B string to the open high E-string 

Then use the 9th fret on the G-string and tune that to the open high E-string

Then use the 14th fret of the D-string and tune that to the open high E-string

Then use the 7th fret on the A string and tune that to the open high E-string

And finally use the open low E-string and tune that to the open high E-string..

 

Much better result to my ears than i ever had with a strobe tuner..

[Stuartpa]

Well guitar-maniac amazing how quickly we forget the good old days when ears meant everything. Let's face it the guitar's basic design is inherently faulty.

Man I hated pitch pipes. But it's all most of us had and we did just fine

Great post mate

[mileskb]

I find it odd that people must have a "tuner" as NO gtr will ever be in tune.......

 

.................Much better result to my ears than i ever had with a strobe tuner..

 

I had not seen that technique before, but will try it.   Not real practical in a live situation or for the roadie/tech on the side of the stage.  In the green room, your bedroom, the bus, all fine.  In any band I've had, or been in, if you're heard tuning on stage you may get one warning, but likely not.       

[Guitarmaniac64]

I had not seen that technique before, but will try it.   Not real practical in a live situation or for the roadie/tech on the side of the stage.  In the green room, your bedroom, the bus, all fine.  In any band I've had, or been in, if you're heard tuning on stage you may get one warning, but likely not.       

 

No its not practical for live of course..

This was just to show how we did it back then where we where not spoonfed with technical gizmos..

 

I have watched tons of old Youtube videos where they tune up and then start to rock the audience was ok with that back then..

 

Roadie?

Wow are you pro?

[Guitarmaniac64]

Well guitar-maniac amazing how quickly we forget the good old days when ears meant everything. Let's face it the guitar's basic design is inherently faulty.

Man I hated pitch pipes. But it's all most of us had and we did just fine

Great post mate

Yeah i also hated pitchpipe still have one :) i used the pitchfork instead i always used to have a little one in the pocket that i used to hit on my knee put it on my temple and sing along to that A note

[Charlie_Watt]

A tuner is a ruler.  How you use it is up to you.  A good tuner has fine graduations on that ruler.  A not so good tuner only has the inches marked.

[cruisinon2]

What happened to "close enough for rock 'n roll"? ;)

[phil_m]

 

I don't know which annoys me more - this topic continuously popping up or your nit-picking argumentation regarding the semantics every time it does.

 

I'll quote one of your old posts on this:

 

EDIT TO NOTE: tried to pull in a quote from another thread. Failed. Bolded it instead:

Say you did a search for my house in Google Earth. If Google Earth tells you "Los Angeles," when you wanted a neighborhood or street address, that doesn't mean Google Earth is inaccurate, because I do indeed live in Los Angeles. Google Earth would be inaccurate if it said I lived in San Diego, just like Helix's tuner would be inaccurate if the wrong box was lit.

The problem with your analogy is that tuners don't work like Google Earth. A tuner is like asking Google Earth, "does DI live in Los Angeles"? And Google Earth says, "yep." OK, cool. Sure, it's not as granular as a street address, but it's accurate to say that. Ok, we're on the same page so far.

 

But now we look at some other examples. Let's say you live did that same search for somebody who lives just outside of Los Angeles (Pasadena, for example). And Google says, "yep, that dude lives in Los Angeles". No, wrong, he doesn't.  Maybe it's only a 5 minute drive away, but it's still wrong. It is not accurate.

 

That's more akin to the issue here. That big green light in the middle is lighting up not just for people in LA, but for people in the surrounding suburbs as well, and it's lumping them all together and saying "THEY LIVE IN LOS ANGELES". No. They live near Los Angeles, not in Los Angeles.

 

I know Chicago, not LA, so I'll use an example from there. Somebody who lives in Evanston does not live in Chicago. Somebody who lives in the Loop does. Asking about somebody in the Loop and getting a generic "they live in Chicago" lacks granulariy. Asking about somebody in Evanston and getting "they live in Chicago" lacks accuracy.

 

You ask the Helix, "is this an A?" and Helix says, "yeah, sure, close enough" when many people and/or tuners would say, "nope, that's a bit off." That's not just lacking granularity, it's inaccurate.

 

Full Definition of accuracy

1:  freedom from mistake or error :  correctness

2a :  conformity to truth or to a standard or model :  exactness

2b :  degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision

 

The display is part of the tuner. If the granularity shows you as in-tune when a reasonable person (or tuner) would say you're not, then that's a mistake. It is not correct. It does not conform to the standard. It is not exact. It is not precise.

 

Therefor, it is not accurate.

 

Feel free to bump this down a few spots on your priority list. It won't make you right.

 

 

The concepts of accuracy and precision are difficult because they overlap. The way I think of it, though, is that accuracy is more of an inherent property of the piece of equipment. The accuracy sets the limits for precision, in a way. If you're bathroom scale is accurate to +/- .5 lbs, it doesn't matter if the readout gives you readings down to .01 pounds - that's a false precision. When I think of precision, I think of the concept of "significant digits", which if people have taken any college level science classes, they might be familiar with. The precision of an output is limited by the data used for that calculation.

 

I think that's why DI is not willing to say the Helix's tuner is inaccurate. It's internal tuning processor is very accurate - +/- .1 cents, I think is what he said elsewhere. So the good news is that adding precision to the tuner display is completely doable.

[klangmaler]

Beating a dead horse? Yes.

[ChubbyJerk]

The concepts of accuracy and precision are difficult because they overlap. The way I think of it, though, is that accuracy is more of an inherent property of the piece of equipment. The accuracy sets the limits for precision, in a way. If you're bathroom scale is accurate to +/- .5 lbs, it doesn't matter if the readout gives you readings down to .01 pounds - that's a false precision. When I think of precision, I think of the concept of "significant digits", which if people have taken any college level science classes, they might be familiar with. The precision of an output is limited by the data used for that calculation.

 

I think that's why DI is not willing to say the Helix's tuner is inaccurate. It's internal tuning processor is very accurate - +/- .1 cents, I think is what he said elsewhere. So the good news is that adding precision to the tuner display is completely doable.

Precision vs accuracy, when it comes to technical measurements, has nothing to do with this argument. Precision, in the technical sense, is repeatability of the measurement. It doesn't overlap with accuracy at all. A measurement can be precise without being accurate, or vice versa. The tuner could say that A flat is A, and if it did it every single time, that would be low accuracy, high precision. That's not the issue here.

 

Look, I understand the argument. Here's the problem: it's irrelevant. Users don't see the measurement, they see the display. The display is an integral part of the tuner. We can't, as users, observe and judge them independently. It's one single unit. It may internally measure the value with pinpoint accuracy. It does not display with accuracy. The display is part of the tuner. A tuner is only as accurate, as a whole, as its worst part.

 

It does not accurately display whether or not you are in tune, when compared to the industry standard (basically any $50 tuner). You cannot acccurately tune your guitar with the tuner on the Helix.

 

(It also sucks on bass, by the way.)

 

Best case, if you want to buy into the semantic argument BS, is that DI is using one definition, and others are using a different one. DI uses the "engineers in the lab" definition, others use the definition from the actual dictionary that normal human beings use. Then DI insults those people for "not knowing the definition of accuracy LOL idiots" (paraphrased, obviously, but that's the inferred tone I got). But that's wrong. They're not using the word incorrectly, they're using it differently. Their use still matches the dictionary definition, just not the one he chooses to use.

 

tldr: The distinction is vital to the developers working on the Helix. The distinction is meaningless to somebody trying to use the Helix to tune.

[phil_m]

Precision vs accuracy, when it comes to technical measurements, has nothing to do with this argument. Precision, in the technical sense, is repeatability of the measurement. It doesn't overlap with accuracy at all. A measurement can be precise without being accurate, or vice versa. The tuner could say that A flat is A, and if it did it every single time, that would be low accuracy, high precision. That's not the issue here.

 

Look, I understand the argument. Here's the problem: it's irrelevant. Users don't see the measurement, they see the display. The display is an integral part of the tuner. We can't, as users, observe and judge them independently. It's one single unit. It may internally measure the value with pinpoint accuracy. It does not display with accuracy. The display is part of the tuner. A tuner is only as accurate, as a whole, as its worst part.

 

It does not accurately display whether or not you are in tune, when compared to the industry standard (basically any $50 tuner). You cannot acccurately tune your guitar with the tuner on the Helix.

 

(It also sucks on bass, by the way.)

 

Best case, if you want to buy into the semantic argument BS, is that DI is using one definition, and others are using a different one. DI uses the "engineers in the lab" definition, others use the definition from the actual dictionary that normal human beings use. Then DI insults those people for "not knowing the definition of accuracy LOL idiots" (paraphrased, obviously, but that's the inferred tone I got). But that's wrong. They're not using the word incorrectly, they're using it differently. Their use still matches the dictionary definition, just not the one he chooses to use.

 

tldr: The distinction is vital to the developers working on the Helix. The distinction is meaningless to somebody trying to use the Helix to tune.

 

It's not meaningless to the the users in the sense that if the tuner were inherently inaccurate, there would be no easy fix. But because it is accurate, changing the UI is relatively straightforward and possible.

 

(I think people need to read between the lines in this thread...). :)

[ChubbyJerk]

It's not meaningless to the the users in the sense that if the tuner were inherently inaccurate, there would be no easy fix. But because it is accurate, changing the UI is relatively straightforward and possible.

 

(I think people need to read between the lines in this thread...). :)

I respectfully disagree. The distinction is meaningless to somebody trying to use the Helix to tune. When I'm standing there at my gig trying to tune, you know what I don't think? "Man, I'm sure glad the underlying tuner is so accurate that this theoretical fix will be coming soon, theoretically!"

 

I'm thinking, "Man, I wish this tuner was more accurate."

 

Oh, wait, sorry...I mean, I'm thinking, "I wish the underlying accuracy that I have no way of observing was more accurately reflected in the visual display so that I could confidently use this to tune my bass."

[gsking1]

My experience is 1) it seems accurate enough for tuning a guitar for gigs - I use it a lot and have never noticed it to produce something I'd consider out of tune and 2) its resolution is sufficient to tune a guitar quickly without being so sensitive that you never get there. Could it be improved? I suppose. But its not a problem at all for me. I use it, it tunes a guitar OK, and it tunes it quickly. That's all I'm looking for on a gig.

Ditto... I agree with this.

[markman87]

Well it's clear that some are not satisfied with the tuner (I'm not one of them) but clearly Line 6 knows this and will fix it. It's also a high priority when looking at ideascale, so my advice is: let's wait and see what happens after the next couple of updates.

 

The whole 1500 $ argument is really beyos nonsense to me. I've had amps that cost more than 2K that didn't have reverb (or didn't have a good one), which even a Blues jr. does. What gives!? Sometimes I think we forget to be grateful for the things we do get. They made helix so flexible that you could easily incorporate a tuner, so until it get fixed, you're not totally lost.

 

It's not that I find the wishing a better representation of the tuning is too much to ask for, I just question whether it's okay to actually demand it as a basic human right ;)

[markman87]

Best case, if you want to buy into the semantic argument BS, is that DI is using one definition, and others are using a different one. DI uses the "engineers in the lab" definition, others use the definition from the actual dictionary that normal human beings use. Then DI insults those people for "not knowing the definition of accuracy LOL idiots" (paraphrased, obviously, but that's the inferred tone I got). But that's wrong. They're not using the word incorrectly, they're using it differently. Their use still matches the dictionary definition, just not the one he chooses to use.

.[/b]

 

Sometimes I'm surprised DI and other Line 6 employees even bother to be so down to earth and help us out all the time. I wonder if you sat with him, you'd get his sense of humor. He's clearly not patronizing anyone. I take his so called snarky replies with a grain of salt. They're clearly in top of this.

 

 

DI: I hope your thick skin can withstand the beating you get everywhere. Just know that some of us understand you guys are doing and delivering the very best ever, and I for one really appreciate the effort. I'm looking forward to see where you'll go with helix. I sure am enjoying mine!

[cruisinon2]

It's not that I find the wishing a better representation of the tuning is too much to ask for, I just question whether it's okay to actually demand it as a basic human right ;)

Lmao...Soon this will be a "movement". All we need are some t-shirts, decide what color the little ribbons are gonna be, and figure it where to hold the first annual "Tune-a-thon". I vote for Toledo...;)

[markman87]

Lmao...Soon this will be a "movement". All we need are some t-shirts, and to decide what color the little ribbons are gonna be. Can't get a decent movement off the ground without t-shirts and ribbons...;)

 

😂

 

Sign me up for two!

[ChubbyJerk]

Sometimes I'm surprised DI and other Line 6 employees even bother to be so down to earth and help us out all the time. I wonder if you sat with him, you'd get his sense of humor. He's clearly not patronizing anyone. I take his so called snarky replies with a grain of salt. They're clearly in top of this.

 

 

DI: I hope your thick skin can withstand the beating you get everywhere. Just know that some of us understand you guys are doing and delivering the very best ever, and I for one really appreciate the effort. I'm looking forward to see where you'll go with helix. I sure am enjoying mine!

Bah, whatever. I like DI. I understand he's doing his job the best he can. In most cases, he performs a tough job admirably. 

 

In my opinion, his posts had a different tone in this thread. It didn't feel light-hearted to me, it felt like, "man, I'm annoyed at these idiots." /shrug, YMMV.

 

ITT: DI showed he doesn't understand that the same word can have different meanings.

[markman87]

Bah, whatever. I like DI. I understand he's doing his job the best he can. In most cases, he performs a tough job admirably. 

 

In my opinion, his posts had a different tone in this thread. It didn't feel light-hearted to me, it felt like, "man, I'm annoyed at these idiots." /shrug, YMMV.

 

ITT: DI showed he doesn't understand that the same word can have different meanings.

It's cool man. I find it hard to really get the tone on a message board. So your comment might have sounded hard to me, while in reality, you just expressed your opinion. I really hope Helix becomes the bee's knees for us all! ;)

[ChubbyJerk]

It's cool man. I find it hard to really get the tone on a message board. So your comment might have sounded hard to me, while in reality, you just expressed your opinion. I really hope Helix becomes the bee's knees for us all! ;)

I love the Helix. The tuner issue is annoying, but, in the grand scheme of things, relatively small.

 

I've refrained from commenting on the tuner thread(s) in the past, because it doesn't bother me all that much. But man, I'm serious...bringing up that same pointless semantic argument about accuracy vs granularity, honestly, as somebody just reading through the threads and not taking a side, it's every bit as annoying as seeing another thread on the tuner.

 

Do you know any people like this? Every time somebody says the word "decimate" they say, "well, technically, you know, decimate specifically means to kill one out of every ten, so it's incorrect to say they decimated their opponents."

 

Yeah, well, technically, that guy is really frickin obnoxious, and nobody cares.

 

This accuracy vs granularity argument has reached that point for me. I understand what he's saying. I just don't care, and I really don't want to read about it again. Just nod your head, say "hey, we know the tuner has issues, and we're working on it." No need to be Mr. Decimate about it.

[phil_m]

If you all knew DI in real life, I think you'd find the description of him as being "that guy" as pretty hilarious... I personally think of him as the opposite of "that guy". :D

 

Helix is his baby, though...  And no one puts baby in the corner! Lol.

 

Trust me, Line 6 hears your tuner woes!

[Digital_Igloo]

Bah, whatever. I like DI. I understand he's doing his job the best he can. In most cases, he performs a tough job admirably.

 

ITT: DI showed he doesn't understand that the same word can have different meanings.

Oh, I get the whole semantics thing. That's not the problem. The problem is that when people read the word "accuracy," they don't rush to their dictionary. They instantly think "Oh, Helix's tuner is broken. When I play a note that's sharp, it must say it's flat or something." Then two hours later there are ten threads on ten different forums talking about how Helix's tuner displays an A when it's really A#. Misinformation spreads like herpes at Burning Man.

 

For example, one person mentions how Helix's reverbs and eight of its ten wahs are M-Class (actually, they're rebuilt in HX with more nuance and control), and an hour later, I'm tracking down five threads talking about how all Helix models are fifteen years old. Yes, this has actually happened multiple times.

 

Helix's tuner is not broken; its feedback simply isn't as granular as some would like. And that's something we can improve. Conversely, we will never improve the tuner's accuracy, because that's never been an issue.

 

In every Helix Tuner thread previous to this one, I've explained that the thing to do—in fact, the only thing one can do—is vote the request up on IdeaScale. Not enough votes? We ignore it. Enough votes? We implement it (if possible).

[robbieb61]

Hey DI...I live in Vegas. Why don't you take the weekend off and drive over and let's drink!  You need some time away from all of this. :)

[ChubbyJerk]

Is the tuner "broken"? I guess that's another semantic argument.

 

What it boils down to for the user is this: can I use it to get my guitar tuned accurately (yes, accurately) in a live situation? The answer, for some, has been no.

 

Broken: not working properly. I'd say the tuner, as a whole, which includes the display, is broken (from their perspective). It's not working properly. It might be working as designed, but that's different. A design flaw is still a flaw.

 

But hey, semantic arguments suck. :)

 

(For the record, for me, it's mostly good enough, except for low E on the bass.)

 

For the record again, sorry if I was overly rude, I just see the semantic sub-argument as pointless and annoying. I understand why the distinction is important to you. I just think it's irrelevant to the end user.

[Digital_Igloo]

Hey DI...I live in Vegas. Why don't you take the weekend off and drive over and let's drink!  You need some time away from all of this. :)

 

Sadly, no rest for the wicked! Gotta finish this stupid record. When it's done, however, it. is. ON. Plus, my wife works for the airlines so we can fly there for free.  :D

 

I understand why the distinction is important to you. I just think it's irrelevant to the end user.

 

I'd agree that it may very well be irrelevant to the end user. It's mainly to keep misinformation in check, that's all. If people wanted to scream bloody murder about how "there aren't enough bars on Helix's tuner," I'd probably say "I agree—vote that sucka up!"

 

Just asked legal if I could leak a screenshot and was told no.

[regalpierot]

'Hey, anyone heard from DI since he followed up on that invitation to go for a drink with that dude in Vegas he only knew through an internet forum. It's been a few months now'

 

:)

[watch4king]

No its not practical for live of course..

This was just to show how we did it back then where we where not spoonfed with technical gizmos..

 

I have watched tons of old Youtube videos where they tune up and then start to rock the audience was ok with that back then..

 

Roadie?

Wow are you pro?

Of course my original post was referring to a live situation.... Can we stay on topic?

In the old days I also used a Marshall Head, a 4x12 cabinet and a microphone but in today's age with the advanced features of the Helix or similar units we got spoiled.

 

Your analogy is the same as telling someone to get a real Amp if the emulation does not sound like the original....

 

I bought the Helix as a stand alone "do it all" solution. It's sad that a $10 tuner can do better in a live situation than the Helix.

[gunpointmetal]

I'd like it if I could tune a 5-string bass to A (or my 9-string guitar with the same low notes) without it having a fit. I play along with synths and stuff all the time, and its its never "out" enough to sound wrong unless I've been beating on the guitar for a while, but thats the same no matter what tuner....but the low tracking on anything below a 5-string bass "B" is almost non-existent.

[bsd512]

The concepts of accuracy and precision are difficult because they overlap. The way I think of it, though, is that accuracy is more of an inherent property of the piece of equipment. The accuracy sets the limits for precision, in a way. If you're bathroom scale is accurate to +/- .5 lbs, it doesn't matter if the readout gives you readings down to .01 pounds - that's a false precision. When I think of precision, I think of the concept of "significant digits", which if people have taken any college level science classes, they might be familiar with. The precision of an output is limited by the data used for that calculation.

 

I think that's why DI is not willing to say the Helix's tuner is inaccurate. It's internal tuning processor is very accurate - +/- .1 cents, I think is what he said elsewhere. So the good news is that adding precision to the tuner display is completely doable.

 

Good analogy is that of a gun - say with a scope.  Line up the cross-hairs on the target bullseye.  If the gun has not been sighted in, you may shoot a tight group, but low and to the right, for example.  The gun is precise (tight group), but not accurate (hitting low and too the right of the bullseye).  Adjust the scope correctly, and you hit the bullseye.  Now the gun is both accurate and precise.  A poorly made gun will not be accurate or precise, i.e., you can't make it shoot a tight group even if locked into a vise, it's all over the place with every firing.

 

Using your scale analogy, the scale is precise if you weigh yourself 5 times and get the same result every time.  It still may not be accurate, though.  Your scale is accurate if you test it with a known calibration standard weight and the scale displays the correct value.  As far as significant digits, false precision can be a problem like you said, making one think it might be more precise than it really is.  Repeated measurements will uncover that flaw very quickly, though.

 

So:

 

precision: you get the same result after repeated measurements, whether they are accurate or not.

accuracy: your measurements match those of accepted standards.

 

accuracy + precision = a well calibrated, high quality instrument.

 

Just semantics, but we should be accurate and precise with our definitions.  :) Just helps avoid confusion and misunderstandings.

[mileskb]

I don't think anyone is questioning the accuracy or precision of the tuner, just the granularity of the display.

 

Using your scope analogy, after it's been dialed in, accuracy + precision = a well calibrated, high quality instrument... now..   instead of looking through cross-hairs put a large DOT in the middle.   Now there's the issue.  You can float up/down and left/right on the bullseye and assume/guess where the center is, but because of the dot you really can't see it and know for sure, so you get a tight grouping still.... but it could be tighter.     In the Helix, as you approach the note, the Center LED and the >< light up a bit flat and sharp of the note.  More than most other tuners.  So you can get real close, but not close enough for tuning completely muted as it's designed.  I have no other tuner that I can actually move the machine head on the guitar and it still read "in tune."   (sorry... went on a rant there...)  

[bsd512]

Agreed.  Sticking with the rifle analogy - the Helix has open sights.  Still an accurate rifle, it's just harder hit the bullseye.  A lot of folks want the scope with the cross hairs.

[chrisvermaak]

Again the issue is resolution not necessarily accuracy.

 

Gotta agree. If every bar could be subdivided in 5 bars that would be brilliant. Only then could we comment on the accuracy. At this time I can change the pitch audible to my tonedeaf ears while staying within the bar.

Helix use of the very best in dac and processors thus this should give us a real high end tuner

[Pacohelix]

i think in terms of this tuner being 100% accurate its not.  there for it sucks.. Im with ya

[cruisinon2]

i think in terms of this tuner being 100% accurate its not. there for it sucks.. Im with ya

Well that settles it then. Since nothing anywhere is ever 100% accurate, therfore everything sucks. Everyone give up!

 

Ugh.

 

Best thread, EVER. Lmao...

[regalpierot]

'there for it sucks'

 

Therefore your grammar kinda sucks  :) 

 

DI. As a feature request, could the next firmware update possibly remove this thread  :mellow: 

[spikey]

I've used my Helix tuner on many of my guitars and It's not broken here. I've tuned up guitars for 45 + years and know when my guitar is out of tune. So I just don't understand unless tuners are broken on certain Helix units while others (like mine) seem ok.

[mileskb]

I've used my Helix tuner on many of my guitars and It's not broken here. I've tuned up guitars for 45 + years and know when my guitar is out of tune. So I just don't understand unless tuners are broken on certain Helix units while others (like mine) seem ok.

 

There's the $1500 question.   This is my first piece of Line6 gear.  Now I could see if the tuner was just granular as a $10.00 clip-on for free App. Who would know?  But that fact that at least some, like mine, have more than double the "free play" in the "tuned" spot... makes me think there is something else going on.  In general these units are well designed, and the attention to detail amazing.   As I mentioned before I kinda just blamed my out-of-tune-ness on me getting used to the unit... then I thought it strange it was easier to tune with my old Sabine unit...  then I started seeing threads about the tuner and thought.... naw....  but then I tested it.  and the test is bad enough.  But compare it to other cheapo tuners  and THEY win.  :(

 

By the way...  I have a Moser Bich 10-String...  Now THAT is something fun to try and tune with the Helix only.... NOT !!!!

[Charlie_Watt]

My recommendation: don't buy the Heilx for the tuner :-)   IT's there but it's not any better than a $10 tuner.

[Saabmugen]

 

I don't know which annoys me more - this topic continuously popping up or your nit-picking argumentation regarding the semantics every time it does.

 

I'll quote one of your old posts on this:

 

EDIT TO NOTE: tried to pull in a quote from another thread. Failed. Bolded it instead:

Say you did a search for my house in Google Earth. If Google Earth tells you "Los Angeles," when you wanted a neighborhood or street address, that doesn't mean Google Earth is inaccurate, because I do indeed live in Los Angeles. Google Earth would be inaccurate if it said I lived in San Diego, just like Helix's tuner would be inaccurate if the wrong box was lit.

The problem with your analogy is that tuners don't work like Google Earth. A tuner is like asking Google Earth, "does DI live in Los Angeles"? And Google Earth says, "yep." OK, cool. Sure, it's not as granular as a street address, but it's accurate to say that. Ok, we're on the same page so far.

 

But now we look at some other examples. Let's say you live did that same search for somebody who lives just outside of Los Angeles (Pasadena, for example). And Google says, "yep, that dude lives in Los Angeles". No, wrong, he doesn't.  Maybe it's only a 5 minute drive away, but it's still wrong. It is not accurate.

 

That's more akin to the issue here. That big green light in the middle is lighting up not just for people in LA, but for people in the surrounding suburbs as well, and it's lumping them all together and saying "THEY LIVE IN LOS ANGELES". No. They live near Los Angeles, not in Los Angeles.

 

I know Chicago, not LA, so I'll use an example from there. Somebody who lives in Evanston does not live in Chicago. Somebody who lives in the Loop does. Asking about somebody in the Loop and getting a generic "they live in Chicago" lacks granulariy. Asking about somebody in Evanston and getting "they live in Chicago" lacks accuracy.

 

You ask the Helix, "is this an A?" and Helix says, "yeah, sure, close enough" when many people and/or tuners would say, "nope, that's a bit off." That's not just lacking granularity, it's inaccurate.

 

Full Definition of accuracy

1:  freedom from mistake or error :  correctness

2a :  conformity to truth or to a standard or model :  exactness

2b :  degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision

 

The display is part of the tuner. If the granularity shows you as in-tune when a reasonable person (or tuner) would say you're not, then that's a mistake. It is not correct. It does not conform to the standard. It is not exact. It is not precise.

 

Therefor, it is not accurate.

 

Feel free to bump this down a few spots on your priority list. It won't make you right.

 

Spot on Mate!!!!!

[MelThorpe]

Inaccurate accuracy resolutions are resolved through accurate granularity and beer.

-Abe Lincoln (circa 1938)