[CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology)

[Fred Sturm]

On 2/28/05 5:35 PM, "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In a related issue.   Ed brings up the issue of progressing fast beating
> intervals and their, in his opinion, less of importance in the overall tuning
> scheme.   I believe Steinway teaches a sort of 4th/5ths kind tuning, which
> would probably mean less importance of fast beating interval progression...Can
> anyone explain a "Steinway" style tuning?   I'm interested in what they
> actually teach for tuning.   Maybe someone on the List has been trained
> there...?
> 
> David Ilvedson

    Boaz (I forget his last name, but it's long and full of letters <g>) had
a post not too long ago where he talked about it. Basically, what I've heard
many times over the years is that in tuning outward from the temperament,
one aims for pure or nearly pure 5ths. Not really much different from doing
a M3/M17 (or m3/M6 in the bass) and adjusting octave size that way, but more
efficient since the hand with the hammer keeps holding the hammer. Bottom
line: maybe a good bit more stretch than the average tuner uses, certainly
more than has become the standard for the PTG tuning test.
    And a side issue is that, although they will listen to some M3/M10/M17's
from time to time to kind of check up, they don¹t fuss over making sure of
minute progression of those beats. There's a sense of what's "good enough"
and that it's more important that it be solid. If it's solid somewhere, and
that somewhere might possibly be capable of a wee bit of improvement, leave
it! Get the tuning done. Concentrate on immaculate, solid unisons. Leave
perfection to those "PTG types." <g>
    At least that is the general attitude I've picked up over the years,
either directly or indirectly. All sources seem to point in that general
direction.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico