Jim-Virgil Tune-Off Revisited

[Danny Moore]

Jim,
Again thanks for taking the time to explain the reasoning for conducting
the TuneOff as it was conducted.

Although I have not yet been able to sit in on one of your seminars, I
have heard Virgil's tuning and it is truly awe-inspiring.  Hopefully,
Les Bartlett & I will be able to drive up to your seminar in Austin.

As Les stated, It is people like you, Virgil, Jim Geiger, and many
others, who set this business apart and above the norm in American
business!

Danny Moore
Houston Chapter

Jim wrote:
>
> To Danny and the List:
>
> Since the purpose of the TuneOff in Chicago was to see if there
> was a major difference between Aural Tuning and Electronic Tuning,
> We relied on the playing and listening tests. After all, "the proof
> of the pudding etc.....".  There was no attempt at quantifying the
> tunings. For those in attendance, there was not major changing of
> the tuning of the previous tuner during the second round.
>
> While Virgil was tuning during the second round, the audience
> could clearly hear all of his test intervals, and it was pleasing
> to hear that he was very consistent in what he was doing.  His
> approach at Artistic tuning was a joy to behold.  Whereas, when I
> was tuning, there was not a lot to enjoy since I was largely tuning
> unisons as I went upward from the break.  I always sounded the
> complete unison before going on just as a double check for myself.
> Every so often I would stop and run a few 10th or 17th just to
> show off a bit. However, in the extreme high treble, I did utilize
> the octav-fifths and double octave fifths to assure myself that my
> program was indeed giving me the stretch that I wanted.
>
> I tuned each piano with the same program which I originally setup
> using the CyberTuner and MIDI-ING it to the SAT. It was interesting
> to note that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference in the
> readings of the SAT as compared to the Cybertuner. Actually, for
> me, reading the SAT was easier, because at that time I was not as
> proficient with the CyberTuner as I am now.  If I had tried to
> be as refined with the CyberTuner as I was accustomed to being with
> the SAT, I would never have finished in a reasonable time.  That is
> not to say that the Cybertuner was poorer or better, but my best
> expertise was with the SAT.  I'm doing better with the CyberTuner
> and it has been improved by Dean in several ways since then. I
> might really get to liking it someday.
>
> There was just slight difference in the voicing of the two pianos.
> This would contribute to preferences some had for one piano over
> the other, but the selections being played also determined how
> the voicing played out.  It went both ways depending on the
> selections.  Another thing we learned was that the placement of
> the pianos in the room had an affect.  Also the seating position
> of individual audience members caused some changes in preferences
> as we discovered in our discussions afterwards.  Some of these
> things will be given more attention in Orlando.  It would be nice
> to try this type of test using disklavier diskettes to do the
> playing.  This way we could better control the playing and the
> shortness of the selections.  Another ideal situation would be to
> have a revolving stage so that as each piano is played, it is in
> exactly the same position.  This is a little much to ask for at
> this time, but if these kinds of tests becaome more popular, then
> it might be worth the extra effort to make it even more scientific.
>
> When you ask about more accurate measuring tools, I'll just say
> this much at this time.  I find it very difficult to tune more
> accurately than about .2 cents.  It is definitely difficult to
> read much more accurately than .2 to .3 cents since piano tones
> are so transient. I know that the Cybertuner has 1/100 cents
> readings in the listening mode, but without a consistent striking
> force, and consistent duration in laboratory conditions, you just
> can't get that kind of accuracy. And besides, who is going to be
> able to hear it?
>
> I think that before we do statistical analysis, we need to have
> some consensus in general as to what a good tuning is.  Right now,
> Virgil and I are both pushing the envelope in a direction which is
> not generally conceded as the normal tuning curve. We hope to
> establish it more firmly as a result of these tests. Actually, I'm
> kinda' following Virgil's lead on this.  I have deliberately
> tried to emulate his tuning style in order to eliminate another
> variable in the contest between aural tuning and electronic tuning.
>
> I hope this helps.  I plan to be in Austin, Tx on May 31st for a
> one day seminar.  We will demonstrate some of this stuff along with
> other things.  Check with the Austin chapter or Charles Ball at the
> University there.
>
> Jim Coleman, Sr.