[pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)

[David Love]

Forgive the several typos and misspelling Duaine's name in the first posting.  Late night one draft writing.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Love
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 10:24 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)

So much vitriol and so many snide comments.  The discussion has diverged into several different topics but with respect to RPT tuning tests, I won't hesitate to say that I agree with Duaine.  And I say this as someone with no political agenda.  I have taken and passed the RPT test without the benefit of an ETD.  The usefulness of aural testing for the temperament and even the octave sections is limited at this point and proves little.  The commonly used ETD's have surpassed aural tuning in terms of consistency and accuracy within the temperament octave certainly and arguable in the octave sections as well, at least in my view.  The evidence is pretty clear.  Given competent and equal lever and pin technique, the ETD user will always score 100% in those sections every time.  The aural tuners won't and mostly don't, even those that pass.  So what does the RPT test really tell us?  It tells us that if we want consistent and accurate results as measured by scores on the RPT test, use an ETD.  To me, it's not clear what is being proven by forcing the issue with an aural temperament and octave test.  With unisons it's different not only because ETD tuners generally tune unisons by ear, but because there are sections of the piano where measuring unison precision is less reliable with the ETD than with the ears.  Stability measures tuning hammer technique and is a separate but valid point of testing.  Checking stability, btw, is much easier and more reliable with an ETD.  You can't talk yourself into believing what you want to hear.  That we are mostly measured as tuners by accuracy and stability of unisons is nothing new.  If there is a weakness in the applicant's aural skills with respect to unisons it will be evident and they won't pass.  The 21st century has arrived and we embrace the use of technology as a tool and to facilitate our sensory limitations all the time.  Why should it be any different with tuning.  I say it's time to reconsider the test altogether and whether it's applicable to the way most people work.  Bring it up to date.  We aren't talking about Strobotuners or Peterson machines anymore.  

With respect to other comments about other aspects of ETDs.  I don't see how anyone can argue about the speed aspect.  ETD's are simply faster.  Thorough aural checks take time.  Sometimes they require two hands.  Every time your hand leaves the tuning lever you are taking more time.  If you skip the tests and just speed tune I suppose you can stay up with the ETD users but it reminds me of that funny Woody Allen line, "I took an Evelyn Wood speed reading course.  I read War and Peace in two hours.  It's about Russia".  

Speed and stress free tuning without compromising accuracy create more consistent tunings from the beginning to the end of the day.  For example, today I tuned 6 pianos (more than my usual full day to be sure and not something I do very often).  Every piano had a pitch adjustment ranging from about 5 cents to 14 cents.  Using a RCT, I set the machine to Smart Tune which is designed as a one pass tuning with pitch correction.  A0 to C88 took less 40 minutes average (yes I kept track all day).  Since there was a pitch correction involved I reset the machine to Fine Tune afterwards and then went through the piano again checking notes against the calculated Fine Tune mode, listening for clean octaves, rechecking unisons, and seeing if the final pitch settling was on target.  On some pianos I made a few corrections, not many, but a few.  The longest I spent total on any piano was 55 minutes, the shortest 47 minutes (tuning that is).  I scheduled each appointment 90 minutes apart and stayed on schedule all day without a problem.  The last piano I tuned received the same attention to detail as the first piano.  I tuned for several decades aurally without the benefit of an ETD.  I was very competent and fast with good control.  There is no possible way that tuning by ear would have achieved the same result in the same amount of time.  Nor would I have dared schedule that many tunings in a day.  The ETD allowed me to focus on what I really needed to focus on with reasonably fresh ears (I'm not a pounder btw), and be confident about the quality of what I delivered in spite of the heavy workload.  My opinion is that aural tuners tend to underestimate their average time.  A pitch correction can go just fine aurally, but sometimes it doesn't and you end up doing a second one, or a correction of the correction.  It wastes time and energy and ultimately accuracy or stability of the final product.  There's no way that aural tuning can consistently achieve what Smart Tune mode can (or other pitch correction modes on other machines) and come anywhere close to the final result.  If you say it can, I think you're not being honest with yourself.  

Someone mentioned substitutes.  When they send someone to substitute for them and they are an ETD tuner how do they know that they will be able to accomplish the tuning, my god, something might happen!   Well I've sent aural tuners to sub for me on pianos I tune regularly and my take is different.  I usually end up returning the piano to what I wanted after it was "personalized".  I haven't found these aural tunings to be any more accurate (usually less).  When I send someone to sub for me, I prefer not only that they use an ETD, but preferably the same one that I use.  Then I can say to them, please use these settings, if you have to tweak something fine, but when I come back to the piano I won't be reinventing the wheel and the piano will remain more stable (assuming their hammer technique is up to it).   

So you might say, "but I enjoy tuning aurally, it offers a challenge, a sense of satisfaction of something accomplished".  I say bravo, if that's your main goal.  For me, I run a business, this is my living and supports my family.  My satisfaction comes from efficiency, consistency and timeliness regardless of my workload, how I happen to be feeling or how I judge or misjudge the specific requirements of a particular piano and are essential to my own sense of professionalism, satisfaction and a sense of something accomplished.  Sure I enjoy tuning.  But I enjoy it more when it's efficient, accurate with the least amount of stress and achieves consistent results.  With respect to customer perceptions, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.  I don't believe they want you around for two hours if you can achieve the same result in one.  They have lives to lead too. 

Honestly, I'm surprised at some who have no problem embracing every new idea when it comes to soundboard making, scale design, action technologies, blah blah blah, but when it comes to tuning, ETD's somehow diminish the product.  Maybe during the regulation part of the RPT test we should have people do that without the benefit of any measuring devices, just by feel.  After all, one day you might forget your ruler!     


David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com