[pianotech] ETD stretch vs pure (octaves)

[James Johnson]

I think one of the things that's causing a problem is that the terminology 
has changed over the years.  I learned tuning theory 43 years ago and we 
never used the terms 4:2 octaves etc. Most tuners referred to the notes on 
the piano as A-1. C-40, C-52 etc instead of C1, C2 etc.  We just learned the 
test intervals in terms of 4ths, 5th, double octave 3rds etc.  When I hear 
the new terms used now, I get lost in the terminology.  The principles are 
still the same.  I think it is harder for someone who has been aural tuning 
for many years to get back into the theoretical when all these processes 
have become so automatic and relegated to the subconscious. I never have to 
give a thought to what the tests and intervals are, my subconscious mind and 
my hands just move together without effort.  I can be doing other things 
with my mind while I'm tuning.  No wonder the theory is constantly dimming 
memory.
Jim
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] ETD stretch vs pure (octaves)


> Hi Gregor
>
> It was precisely the same approach below that led to my own failure to 
> pass my first tuning tests. You seem to imply that it is a negative thing 
> to deal with the academic side of our discipline. I would take the 
> greatest exception to that if so. The benefit of being aware and using 
> consciously coincident partials is to be able to converse intelligently 
> with others and with your self about what exactly you are attempting to 
> accomplish. It does no real good to use vague expressions like <<make it 
> sound good>>
>
> I have no doubt that you learned to listen for certain beat rates in 
> testing intervals as a very central part of your training. The vocabulary 
> and academics behind interval types, ie 4:2, 6:3  octaves, 3:1, 6:3 
> twelfths, 4:1, 8:2 double octaves etc etc are very central to what you 
> were listening too. Finishing off a fine tuning by listening holistically 
> is good practice in anycase... but certainly no reason for attempting to 
> simply tune that way from the get go and most certainly no reason for 
> advising others to set aside the intellectual side of what we do.
>
> No good tuner I know of simply slavishly aligns any particular pair of 
> coincidents to begin with. That piece of knowledge is also one of those 
> bits you pick up from the academic side. Coincident partials are tools we 
> use, and the more conscious we are about what they are and how to use them 
> the better a tuner you will be... no matter which way you go about things.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
>    Great idea. The whole discussions seems a little bit theoretical and
>    abstract.
>
>    When I joined this list a few years ago I read the first time about
>    ETD´s. In this context I heard the first time about 4:2, 6:3 or
>    whatsoever octaves. Of course I knew what was meant but I never
>    thought about it before. I learned all the tuning theory during my
>    training, but I never strived for a particular octave such as 4:2 or
>    any other. I just wanted to let it sound good. I remember that I
>    first had a hard time to decide on which beats of an octave I should
>    listen. I heard so much ringing, beating and overtones that I was
>    completely confused. My goal was to cut the knot and bring some calm
>    in the restlessness, but I did it with my ears and not with the
>    intellectual capacity of my academic brain. In hindsight I can say
>    that was a good because holistic approach.
>
>    When you focus on a particular partial matching you risk that you
>    neglect other partial pairs. Once you started to focus on a pair
>    your brain will quickly adapt and filters out the rest. I became
>    aware of it since I have an apprentice now. She is new to tuning and
>    has the same hassle that I had with hearing overtones. She showed me
>    what she was hearing and I was stunned because I did not hear it
>    first. But after hearing it once I could not stop for a while,
>    because I was so focused on her perception. My brain had completely
>    filtered out what she was hearing before she told me.
>
>    Sometimes some partials are louder than others and this
>    constellation is not consistent over the whole piano, sometimes even
>    not within an unison. What works for e.g. A3-A4 may be wrong for
>    G3-G4. So, a holistic approach might be better than single partial
>    matching. Tuning an interval always means finding the best possible
>    compromise. Therefore, just let it sound good and don´t care too
>    much about the math.
>
>    Gregor
>
>
>
>