Aural versus ETD tuning training

[Richard Brekne]

I beg to differ with both gentlemen. The so called Tuneoffs have shown
nothing more then those demonstrations which have shown that even piano
technicians can be fooled by differing temperaments. We have seen it
several times, that tuners can listen to two pianos, one tuned in an HT
and another tuned in ET, and not be able to tell which is which. The
only thing these kinds of demonstrations really demonstrate is that many
of us are not yet aurally aware to the degree we perhaps think we are.
This is most assuredly the case as there are most assuredly pianists and
tuners who can indeed notice temperament differences immediatly upon
hearing. 
There is nothing about the tuneoffs that demonstrates anything
different. Tho I am the first to defend the use of ETD's in learning to
tune, and will also be the first to defend their ability to create a
fine tuning within the parameters they opperate on, I see no point in
overestimating their capabilities. There certainly is a lot more then a
dimes worth difference between the two.

The real straight skinny is that ETD's do not compare beats. Even the
best of them (perhaps verituner excepted) do not even bother listening
to the partial ladders of more then a few notes for the calculation of
the tuneing curves they produce. This binds the ETD to a rather limited
operating scope in producing said curves and their are indeed problems
with these that they are not themselves able to resolve. 

To say the machine is the equal of the ear is way off the real point of
their value. There is nothing really equal about the two devices, nor is
there anything about either that makes them inherently superiour. One
can say the ETD is able to more exactly identify its target frequency in
most cases, but when it really comes down to it, thats about it. On the
other hand there is most assuredly a whole scope of tuning techniques
that only the ear is cabable of, simply because the machine is not
programed to deal with them and because the machine doesnt think... its
not cabable of deciding anything about what is musical or not at any
given time.

Most of the rest of the discussion about what makes ETD tunings "just as
good" as an ear tuning is philological in nature and has more to do with
what one defines a tuning to be then it has to do with anything else.

Examplavis... And ETD will not insure an acceptable curve of beating
thirds or tenths. It may or may not do a good job of it depending on the
piano, but it will not insure this because it simply has no way of
directly doing so. Thats not what its listening for, and there is
nothing in its calculated single partial curve that can indirectly do
this. On the other hand, if what one is after is a perfect spacing of
any given single partial over some range of the piano, the ETD will do
this far better then the ear... because thats exactly what it DOES do,
and our ear / brain combination is not set up well to do this... we need
to listen to beats.

ETD's can indeed help learn to tune, they can indeed provide a good
tunining most of the time, even fine one when intellegently used. But to
declare these Tuneoffs as some kind of objective proof that there is not
a dimes worth of difference between the two is ... well... simply wrong.
That doesnt take away from what ETD's are good at, nor does it overstate
their cababilities. They do what they do, and nothing more.

RicB


> > For those who are new to the pianotech list, I had thought that
> > with the demonstrations of the "Tuneoffs" a few years ago we would
> > not need to rehash this argument about the superiority of Aural vs
> > ETD tuning. There is not a dime's worth of difference with those
> > skilled in either method. And the beginning ETD user has a
> > definiteadvantage over the beginning aural tuner. While it may be
> > true in
> > some instances that some ETD users never really become good tuners,
> > the same can definitely be said about some aural tuners.
> >
> > Jim Coleman, Sr.
> >
> 
> Thanks for setting the record straight, Jim, we need to hear it from
> the person who proved it, from time to time. 

-- 
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html