[CAUT] CAUT Endorsement (was Re: Job Opening, U. of Michigan, Ann Arbor)

[Fred Sturm]

On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:

> Just a thought on the tuning test idea.  The present RPT test is to  
> my mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and execute.   
> Nor do I believe it should be necessary to have it such.  A tuning  
> standard can be easily defined in terms of what decided upon sets  
> of coincident partials behave like when tuned.  As a banal example,  
> one could simple ask the examinee to execute a bass tuning from say  
> D3 downwards in terms of exact 6:3 types. This is extremely easy to  
> measure afterwards and requires no prior set up... outside of a  
> reasonably detuned instrument.  It doesn't take much imagination to  
> see how this principle could be applied to encompass a real tuning  
> that is quite acceptable in real life terms.  One added benefit of  
> this approach would be that the examinee would know ahead of time  
> exactly what is expected of him/her.  This is far from always the  
> case in the present system.  I would think it would be  
> nonproblematic to extend this approach to a very demanding test.
>
> Cheers
> RicB

Hi Ric,
	This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for a caut  
tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials for  
consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you mention. And  
there are many other possibilities as well. Our initial plan is to  
look at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 partial matches,  
and see how evenly they progress. If something is out of kilter, it  
should show up pretty clearly.
	But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask the examinee  
to do anything but tune "your best concert tuning," explaining that  
we will look particularly for crystal clear and rock solid unisons,  
and for evenness of stretch in the outer octaves. IOW, no artificial  
constraints, just do what you normally do in that circumstance.
	I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 cents  
tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though well within what  
I hope most of us are producing on a day to day basis. Beta testing  
will reveal whether or not this is so, and whether we might need to  
fudge a little to, say, 0.6 or something, and possibly more in high  
treble where ETD resolution can be a problem.
	How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it is at least  
an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On the face of it,  
it seems like it should work like a charm, but proof is in the pudding.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20071012/f95f6a37/attachment.html