"David M. Porritt" wrote: > > > >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. > > Is an acceptable curve of thirds or tenths THE criteria for a good > tuning? What is the criteria of a good tuning? Well.. Thats the exact question now isnt it ? The ETD has a very specific definition and as long as the piano aggrees with that as it were, then all is well by and large. No argument there. But as soon as you move away from the ETD's definition, well then the ETD isnt nearly so suited. And there is a whole field of play to move around in out there that fits this bill. We get past the "pass the test" level of tuning and enter that area of tuning that is pretty accomplished in nature and there are lots of different ways of prioritizing things. Some of these the ear does better, and some the ETD has the edge on. Together the ETD and the educated ear make a tremendous combination for anyone who cares to take things that far. > > The tuneoffs showed that an audience of piano technicians couldn't > decide which tuning was better by using aural means. The work was > done by two highly respected (correction, HIGHLY RESPCETED) > technicians and the consensus was the results were equal. To repeat > what Jim said, why does this matter keep coming up? Well lets see... the audience was allowed to hear the instruments played, the ETD tuning was accomplished by a master ETD tuner who is also a master aural tuner and there was no effort to mask the ear in the process. And repected or not, however highly, not much has been done even to this date to learn about the differences between ear tunings and ETD tunings, except some basic stuff to justify the use of ETD's. And all in all... the tests were about as objective and enlightening as the temperment demonstrations I refered to before. No one questions the degree of respect due those techs who couldnt hear the difference between a Well tempered piano and an ETD, and no one questions the degree of respect due the Tuneoff audience either. However, the net result of such tests is tritely interesting at best. At least in the sense of what they prove or do not prove. What they SHOULD tell us, is that we have much more to learn about what tuning a piano is really all about... if we want to bother going there. Course we could just sit on our haunches and be satisfied with what we already know. God knows that what we do now... ETD wise or not... works in enough situations that we could make that choice easily enough. Personally, I see no reason why any of this should threaten ETD or Aural enthusiasts. Heck the whole point is that both the ear and the ETD do what they do best, better then the other. Together they make a great team. But only, as with all things, if you use both tools in an educated manner. The matter keeps comming up because both sides keep arguing over a moot point and fail to see that the differences between ear and ETD tunings are an asset and not a point of contention. They are certainly real, worth much more then a dime, and represent a wonderful opportunity to move the art of tuning further. They do not represent any real reason for folks to get all hot and bothered and jump all over each other about. Cheers RicB > > dave > > _____________________________ > David M. Porritt > dporritt@mail.smu.edu > Meadows School of the Arts > Southern Methodist University > Dallas, TX 75275 > _____________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC