On 9/8/94, Ron Torrella asked the following questions concerning an a= rticle by=20 Kent Swafford: 1. When you're addressing the customer's apparent concern in the abo= ve=20 example, are you in fact tuning the instrument using the SA-T or are = you=20 first tuning the instrument, then recording the resultant tuning? 2. Does your SA-T take atmospheric conditions into account? (Season= al=20 changes and what-not.) What if the piano were to be moved into a=20 different room between the time you tune/record the first time and th= en=20 return? Would you have to start from scratch? 3. If your customer calls you the next day and expresses disapproval= =20 with the tuning, would you hesitate to return, _sans_ SA-T, to give a= =20 completely aural tuning? Would you consider this "backing down" or= =20 merely satisfying the customer? What about subsequent tunings? Woul= d=20 they be SA-T-assisted tunings in this customer's case? What if the w= ord=20 spread from that customer that, when push came to shove, you caved= =20 thereby giving some validation to the customer's contention that aura= l is=20 better than assisted? 4. Does using the SA-T *really* cut your tuning time down? Does it= =20 *really* "free up your mind" when tuning? (What would it be free to = do? =20 Run through the grocery list? No, not sarcasm, just wondering what e= lse=20 one would want to think of while attending to this piano. Personally= , I=20 might find the SA-T to be more of a distraction so I don't understand= how=20 it can be such a mental strain to tune without an SA-T. It would see= m to=20 me that one would be better able to consider voicing and other action= noise/=20 =00 regulation problems to not have to be concerned with fiddling with th= at=20 device.) 5. When I was very young, my piano was tuned by an old man (no=20 electronic gadgets). When he retired, my parents called on several= =20 technicians from the PTG. One gentleman showed up and tuned the pian= o=20 with an A-T (not sure what brand it was but it had a circle of red li= ghts=20 like the SA-T). I thought it was pretty neat, myself. But when he l= eft=20 and I began practicing, I noticed a distinctly different sound--steri= le,=20 cold, lifeless. My folks called him back and he demonstrated that th= e=20 piano was perfectly in tune. No amount of convincing worked for me. = It=20 just didn't sound right. Note that I had no prejudices against his= =20 use of the tuning device and as my long-time technician had retired m= any=20 years before, I was not accustomed to a particular tuning or tuner. = I'm=20 sure that this phenomenon can be explained away, but isn't it possibl= e=20 that some pianists actually prefer *not* to hear equal temperament an= d=20 dead-perfect unisons? I suspect that this is the root cause of most= =20 pianists' dislike of electronically-assisted tunings. Caveat: I think there are good uses for the SA-T. I don't dispute= =20 that, in some cases, they may provide a better tuning than could=20 otherwise be provided--in cases like colds, ear infections, medicatio= ns=20 that dull the auditory nerves, etc. My questions aren't aimed at= =20 starting a flame war. These are questions/comments I've heard among = my=20 customers, some of whom have called for my services specifically beca= use=20 they didn't like their pianos tuned electronically. Ron Torrella, Head Piano Technician School of Music University of Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- Hello Ron: Although I cannot speak for Kent Swafford about your questions to his= Journal=20 article, I would like to share with everyone my perspective of the di= scussion.=20 I am an aural tuner, and have been a strong supporter of aural tunin= g as=20 opposed to visual tuning for many, many years. I also use an Accu-Tu= ner=20 everyday. How can this be? =20 Here is how I use the Accu-Tuner (A-T): 1. Pitch adjustments. Having raised and lowered pitch aurally for t= wenty=20 years, and now having experienced pitch adjustments using the A-T, I = can=20 truthfully say that there is not a more accurate and efficient way of= =20 adjusting pitch than with the A-T. 2. Pitch source. After years of holding my tuning fork under hot or= cold=20 running water to regulate its temperature, I find that using the A-T = to set=20 the pitch of A-440 is quick, easy and unquestionably accurate. Demon= stration=20 to customers of how flat or sharp a piano may be is also easier with = the A-T. =00 3. Theoretical understanding. Using the A-T for analyzing inharmonc= ity, etc.=20 has been a great help to my understanding of these subjects along wit= h reading=20 about them and listening to instructors. 4. PTG exams. It would be very difficult to be an active CTE withou= t an A-T.=20 I would have to depend on someone else to provide this necessity. I= n=20 addition, having the PTG exam program in my A-T expedites exam admini= stration. 5. Reproducing aural tunings. This is the most valuable of all the = features=20 of the A-T. Once a good aural tuning has been accomplished and accur= ately=20 recorded in memory, reproducing this tuning again and again does inde= ed cut=20 down on tuning time and frees up the mind. During aural tuning a tun= er must=20 constantly focus his hearing on a multitude of sounds and make instan= t=20 judgements as to which is the best compromise for each of the partial= s of each=20 of the intervals of each of the 88 notes on the keyboard. Reproducin= g an=20 aural tuning from the A-T memory requires focusing the eyes and stopp= ing the=20 lights. The hammer technique is the same for both methods. The cons= tant=20 pressure of focusing on beats, comparing beat speeds, listening to 3r= ds, 4ths,=20 5ths, 6ths, 8vs, etc. etc. etc., and making instant judgements has al= ready=20 been taken care of when the aural tuning was initially done. Time is= also=20 saved since no strip mute is involved, and the piano can be tuned= =20 chromatically from A0 to C88, tuning the unisons as you go. (I tune = the=20 unisons aurally, although the top 3 or 4 notes, which are sometimes n= othing=20 more than a knock, can often be tuned more accurately using the A-T o= n each=20 string of the unison.) In noisy concert situations, the A-T has been= a life- saver more than once, and is also very helpful when tuning two pianos= together=20 when the keyboards cannot be placed in close proximity to each other. 6. Computer-generated tunings. I DO NOT use the A-T to create tempe= raments=20 or tunings. Thus far, I have not found one of these tunings to be wi= thout=20 flaws, even with the new FAC configuration. Since a computer-generat= ed tuning=20 must be thoroughly checked and always corrected, I find that I can cr= eate a=20 better temperament/tuning, and can do it faster without the use of th= e A-T. =20 This is not to say that others cannot use the A-T to create accurate= =20 temperaments. Perhaps I have not yet learned to use the A-T properly= for this=20 function. I'll have to admit, however, that these FAC tunings are more accurate= than my=20 tunings were 25 years ago. But, if I had started out with an A-T, I = probably=20 would never have fully developed the skill to tune aurally. As I hav= e stated=20 time and again, "If you can't tune without an electronic tuning devic= e, you=20 can't tune with one." 7. Generic tunings. In practice rooms where I have many pianos of t= he same=20 make and model, I do not hesitate to use a generic tuning, that is, a= n aural=20 tuning done on a piano of the same make and model. Practice room pia= nos go=20 out of tune faster than any of the other pianos I have, and I find th= at a=20 generic tuning is very adequate for this situation. Since I have 225= pianos=20 in inventory, practice rooms pianos are on the bottom of the list. I= t is=20 better to be able to tune those pianos more often with a generic tuni= ng than=20 less often with a strictly aural tuning. 8. Treble octave tuning. In octaves 6 and 7, I use the A-T to tune = octaves. =20 For example, by measuring the partials of notes in octaves 4 and 5, I= find the=20 best tuning for notes in octave 6. This is exactly what I do aurally= , but I=20 do not need the aural tests to prove which tuning is best. I can= =20 automatically tune notes as 2:1 octaves, 4:1 double-octaves, 6:1 doub= le-octave- fifths, or even 8:1 triple octaves, or anything in between, whichever= is best=20 for that particular piano. This method has improved the smoothness,= =20 consistency, and even the stability of my treble tuning. =20 In answer to your question #2: The A-T does not take seasonal change= s into=20 account any more than your tuning fork does. Seasonal changes are fi= gured=20 into the pitch setting, which can be done with the A-T or a fork. Th= e tuner=20 makes the judgement in both instances. In answer to your question #5: The difference between current electr= onic=20 tuning devices and those of 20 years ago is vast. "In the beginning"= , tuning=20 devices produced tunings without any regard for inharmonicity. Later= , these=20 were improved by suggesting that the tuner "stretch" the octaves just= a little. After that, the "stretch" was calculated and printed on charts, and= tuners=20 combined these printed charts with a little imagination, and produced= better,=20 but still inadequate tunings. These are the tunings that gave rise t= o the=20 negative attitudes toward electronic tuning that persist today. Elec= tronic=20 tuning today, properly done, is as far removed from earlier versions = as is the=20 rocket from the stagecoach (well, at least the Model-T). When I first began using my A-T, I was ashamed of it, and hid it when= ever=20 someone came in the room. Whether it was university professors, or o= rdinary=20 customers, I didn't want them knowing that I was using an electronic = device. =20 This is no longer the case. In any situation =D1guest artist or upri= ght piano=20 owner=D1 I don't hide the machine, and I have yet to be challenged as= you=20 mentioned in question #3. I hope this discussion has been helpful. Danny L. Boone, RPT Baylor University Waco, Texas
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC