Aural?

[Farrell]

I am interested in understanding your use of the Sanderson AccuTuner. Your
approach appears unique.

> I have no need at all for the FAC type calculation.  I, in fact don't even
> know how to do it and don't even want to learn.  To me, it is useless.
*I*
> and *I* alone determine the intervals and the stretch.
>  I still do the wound
> strings on most pianos entirely by ear and when I reach the 7th octave on
> many pianos, I stop looking at the SAT.

You apparently use a SAT.  But you do not use FAC numbers. That's amazing. I
do not understand how to operate the SAT without inputting FAC numbers to
calculate a tuning (and then modifying the calculated tuning to your
taste/preference by manipulation of the FAC number or the Double Octave Beat
feature on the SAT III). Could you please explain your procedure. I am
always interested how to better use this valuable tool. Thanks

Terry Farrell
Piano Tuning & Service
Tampa, Florida
mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <Billbrpt@AOL.COM>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Aural?


> In a message dated 9/28/00 10:50:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
> ramsey@extremezone.com (Kevin E. Ramsey RPT) writes:
>
> << Hi, I have an unusual history. I first started tuning (snip, snip) I'm
> still humble, although I seem to have an answer for everything. And by the
> way, I do use my ear every time I tune, but mostly it's to check the
results
> I'm getting, which are quite good. Tuning's not hard, voicing a piano is
what
> counts. >>
>
> My own experiece is so similar to Kevin's that I can hardly believe I
didn't
> write what he did.  I am basically an aural tuner and was for some 21
years
> before I tried to use the SAT and it took me two years before the SAT was
> anything more than an encumberence to what I always felt I could do
"faster,
> better and cheaper", as they say, by ear.
>
> I have no need at all for the FAC type calculation.  I, in fact don't even

> know how to do it and don't even want to learn.  To me, it is useless.
*I*
> and *I* alone determine the intervals and the stretch.  I still do the
wound
> strings on most pianos entirely by ear and when I reach the 7th octave on
> many pianos, I stop looking at the SAT.  I do not "count" beats.  I may
make
> a couple of initial estimates but after that, everything is done by
> comparison of either exactly the same, slower or faster but without there
> ever being a precise, numerical rate of beating affixed to any particular
> interval.
>
> I wear ear plugs always.  The piano is so loud, I can hear all the beats I
> need to hear right through them.
>
> I have often noticed that some of PTG's very best tuners learned all by
> themselves.  In my opinion, it takes that kind of personality to be in
this
> business: a self-starter, musical talent, experience, perception and a
desire
> to work very hard at very small details that seem insignificant to others.
>
> I have often been confronted with the "how dare you?" admonition regarding
> the way I tune and the fact that I most often use a temperament and octave
> system that I designed myself.  I laugh to myself the number of times that
> someone has looked me up and down and said, "You?, YOU?, ***YOU***?  You
> think ***YOU*** know better than all of the people who contributed to the
> volumes of HT's and the conventional wisdom of today?   ****YOU****!!!???
>
> The answer, is yes, I do.  There wasn't a single method in all of the
books I
> ever read that was good enough for me, so I came up with my own.  My
methods
> however are the synthesis of all of the many things I have learned along
the
> way by the many great PTG technicians, most of them Golden Hammer Award
> winners who each has had his own style and perspective.  I've always
believed
> that a good student does not simply regurgitate the knowledge that has
been
> acquired but makes something new and evolutionary from it.
>
> Bill Bremmer RPT
> Madison, Wisconsin
>