David Lawson Pianos wrote: > I can't believe all the rot that is going on about which is the better > tuning. Who said that the ETD was correct, the computer programmer? Or > that the aural tuning is spot on. In my fifty years of tuning, I can > only say that when you leave an individual piano and you and your > customer are happy with the result, then that is a good tuning. The > other factors of course is stability of tuning, voicing and the myriad > of other matters that assist in making the piano what it is. If you > don't know about these, then you are not a GOOD tuner. Every piano is > different, and from where I am coming from as an aural tuner only, I > have a bias towards what I do, as do the opposition. If one treats each > piano on its merits, then the result must be as good as it can be. Let's > face it, this is an IMPERFECT science we are dealing with, and I claim > there is not such thing as the perfect tuning, so just do your best. If > that is not good enough then deliver the morning paper! > Cheers, David Lawson Wangaratta Australia. As far as I know, the only attempt to "objectively" measure and quantify an acceptable tuning is the PTG's test for RPT status. I don't know how this is done elsewhere, but the point is that there *is* at least one heroic attempt at an objective recognized standard extant, which would, utilized, have eliminated the bulk of this thread. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC