A440 and the tuning exam (was A440=Fork)

[Richard Brekne]

Kent, all this is fine and well, and it points out a need in the
industry to
produce a more standardized pitch source (if indeed that is really
neccessary). But I fail to see how it should be neccessary to bring this
issue into the examination process. I give the following reasons.

1. Considering the time and effort it takes to set up a tuning exam, and
the
cost to the examinee, it is ridiculous to fail said examinee simply
because
his tuning fork is out of tolerance. If fork accuracy is such a big
deal, it
is easy enough to check its accuracy before setting up tests.

2. I can not see that the ability to manufacture or remanufacture a
tuning
fork has anything directly to do with the skills neccessary to tune a
piano.
This requirement in essence is out of scope.

3. There is a built in paradox to the testing procedure regarding this
point.
It consists of the fact that "real" A440 must be achieved, yet one must
achieve this aurally, not visually. The only possible point to insisting
on
the aural performance of this task is to prove the examinee can match
the
piano to the source with his ear. That in itself has nothing at all to
do
with what pitch the fork is at. The requirement that the fork be at real
440
is thereby isolated from the skill we are testing. If it was pitch
accuracy
that was paramount, then the requirement for aural achievement of this
pitch
would not be neccesary.

My point is simply that this kind of thing has no buisness being a
direct
part of the testing proceedure. Rather, (if it is deemed neccessary) it
should be a seperate pre-requisit for being allowed to take the tuning
exam
in the first place. On a par with the practical, and written parts of
the
exam. No one dissagrees with the need to provide accurate pitch sources.
But
it is not the tuners fault that his 80 dollar Primson Greely is two
cents off
because of temperature fluxuations. And if such errors are of earth
shaking
importance, then why not just allow for visual sources as well as
anything
else that gets the job done. ?

Sounds too me like some change in the test got implemented cause folks
got
the feeling they needed to do something, anything, but something.

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway




Kent Swafford wrote:

> When the PTG tuning exam was first established, the scoring was adjusted
> to allow for the actual pitch of the examinee's pitch source. No longer.
>
> What has gone unsaid here is that the tuning fork has been supplanted
> technologically by more accurate electronic pitch sources. Electronic
> pitch sources may be used for the tuning exam as long as they have no
> visual display/pitch measurement of an external pitch.
>
> When I was starting out in piano tuning, piano tuners would bring tuning
> forks together and they would all be at different pitches. There was no
> way to determine which one (if any) was right, and which were wrong.
>
> Today things are different. I have a little demonstration that I use in
> my classes. I turn on a two decade old Hale ElectroFork and then measure
> the pitch simultaneously with a decade old Sanderson Accu-Tuner and RCT
> running on a two year old laptop. So far, RCT and the SAT have both
> displayed the ElectroFork as dead on A=440. (Try that with 3 tuning forks
> of the same ages.)
>
> The point is that if these electronic tuning devices all agree, the
> chances are very good that they are all accurate. The chances that they
> are all inaccurate by identical amounts is negligible.
>
> This is the world in which the PTG tuning exam operates. Examinees who
> wish to give themselves the best advantage on the exam will consider
> using an electronic pitch source.
>
> Kent Swafford