Brian, You bring up some interesting points. I have often thought that watching those lights spin is such a strong signal to the brain that in the long run it will always outweigh what the ears are saying or even if you do change what the lights say you might have doubts. I think the more you work with the ETD's and see how good they are the more this becomes true. The reason I am speculating on this is because we are visual beings unless we are not sighted. Somebody wrote in the Journal not to long ago to try closing your eyes while stuck on a tricky unison or octave. Try it sometime, it is amazing. You hear more clearly right away. I know every one is different but it seems to me that unless you are sightless the eyes are the king of the senses. This brings me to another thought I had. During the supertuning of the exam piano there is suppose to be at least three people doing it. At least one CTE and two RPT's. I think this is the way it is set-up and I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. If this is true, then I also wonder, if two of those examiners use ETD's and there is one aural tuner and he or she disputes some aspect of the tuning I doubt that the two people using ETD's are going to be the ones outvoted about said disputed note. If what I speculated above about the signal to the brain is even remotely correct This is a very real scenario considering so many people use ETD's now. In fact, of the people I know personally involved with the test at the examiner level most use ETD's. Again this is because they are high level conscientious people and the machines are so good. I am not trying to say there is something wrong with the test it is very good and alot of people worked very hard on it. It just seems very geared toward the way the accu-tuner tunes. For instance, I heard of a man who was a concert tuner used to stretching the tuning way more than is allowed for the test. He did this day in and day out. He failed the test. Why should he have to artificially change his tuning style even once for the exam. I think the Guild was the loser in this scenario. Just wondering. Doug Hershberger, RPT ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Henselman <musicmasters@worldnet.att.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Friday, October 29, 1999 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Ears vs machines (Was Tuning forks) > Michel, > > I kinda like the thought that I'm both the prosecuter and the defense all in > one. (heh heh) > > It's not that I expect my "hearing" or "ears" to improve by tuning aurally > only. Instead, I expect my mind to improve in what it "perceives" that my > ears "hear". The irony of it is, I have always had lousy hearing! My ears > have never been better than 80% normal hearing sensitivity. > > This means that from day 1, I have always valued what my ears tell me. > Whether this information comes from my ears or eyes may seem immaterial to > an Electronic tuner. But, I assure you that it is relavant to me. I know > that performing artists don't carry accu-tuners, and many frankly don't care > who tuned the piano, as long as it was done well. > > My goal has always been to do it well. I have always believed that by > strictly "adhering" to what I'm "hearing", that I can best just what to do > next while tuning. By listening, and not watching a display, I believe that > I am listening the same way that the performer will listen. Hey, the proof > of a good tuning is "in the pudding". In the end, what's most important is > "how" does the performer hear it? Does he or she use an ETD, or do they > just listen while playing? If "ears" are good enough for artists, then why > can't they be good enough for us? > > I think that the most important thing that any technician (aural or > Electronic) could do to improve his or her tuning skills, is learn how to > play the piano well enough to "listen". Learn some of the repertoire that > an artist would use. Check tests are great, and should be used for both > aural and electronic tuning. However, actual music is an even better check > test. The only times that I am aware of having been tripped up with a bad > temperament, or unisons, is when I was too tired or pressed for time to > actually sit down and play the piano for a while when I finished tuning. > Yes, I had used every technicians aural check-test conceivable, except for > one...MUSIC. > > The argument shouldn't be man vs machine. It should be man vs his own > limitations. Some rightly chose a machine to do their job. Others look > within. > > -Brian Henselman, RPT > > >I agree about the fact it is very important to try to improve our hearing > >skill and to rely as much as possible to what our ears are telling us. > >However, I think that if it is true that we do not improve our skill in > >using a visual device without listening to what it does, I don't believe > >tuning aurally will necessarily indulge an automatic hearing improvement > >either. > > > >The problem is that when we want to improve our ears, we use the same organ > >to evaluate the improvement. In other words, the ears are both the judge > >and the apprentice. It is like being our own master in learning to play > >golf! > > > >For some unknown reasons, some people seem to be specially gifted and are > >able to hear or to perceive better what they listen to than the common > >person. But everybody can train their ears to achieve a very high level of > >accuracy. The ear is a very fine instrument and will adapt itself to the > >standard it is accustomed to. If it is used to hear lousy tuning, it will > >take this kind of tuning as being the true thing, would it be by ear or > with > >a machine. > > > >I do not believe that the ear improves constantly just by a simple > practice. > > The ear does need external aid when it is trained to tune pianos. In the > >aural tuning tradition, these external aids come by means of test > intervals. > > It is by always submitting our ears to the highest standard that we will > >sharpen our hearing, would it be by multiplying the test interval, or by > >using a very good visual tuning device. > > > >When we start learning tuning piano, we are usually very careful about > >testing over and over and our hearing perception make giant leaps at that > >time. Then, there comes a time where we sort of set our own standard and > >decide that our tuning is good enough. This a trap I think many tuners, > >including myself, fell into. We DECIDE that an octave IS in tune because > it > >SOUNDS in tune to our ears. This is the point I think where our > >self-improvement shifts to the neutral gear. > > > >Before using an ETD, I though I was a fairly good tuner, so I was told by > >all my clients. With my first visual tuning however (with a SAT II), I had > >to admit that I was confronted to a higher standard of accuracy. It is not > >because the octaves sounded necessarily better with the machine, it is > >rather the overall sound of the piano that strucked me first. And it is > >this kind of sound I am always looking for now, by all means. > > > >>I don't think that it is an > >>accident that most serious artists that perform at our local performance > >>venues specifically request aural concert tuning. I've never had someone > >>call and request an ETD tuning, but I've seen numerous times that I was > >>called specifically because I won't use an ETD. > > > >I don't think this is a fair argument. I have met some musicians who had > >their piano tuned by a machine that was either not adequate, or with a > >ready-made tuning that was not well suited for their instrument. Their > >conclusion was then that ear was better than the machine. I think that the > >tune-off's few years ago proved at least one thing: a visual tuning, when > >professionnaly done with the proprer instrument, is just as good as a > >state-of-the-art aural tuning. > > > >With all due respect! :-) > > > >Michel Lachance, RPT > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC