[pianotech] regulation without a ruler (was: Old can of worms)

[David Love]

We weren't really talking about whether there are bad aural and/or bad ETD tuners.  Of course there are.  The discussion for me was primarily driven by the meaning of the RPT test and the merits of aural versus electronic tuning.  Those who would pass the RPT test tuning unisons aurally (along with stability) have the requisite skills to deliver solid and consistent tunings, I would argue.  Even if they don't do other than hit the target on a calculated tuning I would not probably judge the tuning potential as just "average" as you suggest, and if the RPT test score is an indication, I would guess that the electronic tuners would tend to score higher, all other things being equal.  I'll let you interpret the meaning of that.  

So then the question is if we take the two types, aural versus electronic, and assume each has equivalent unison and stability skill (something not impacted by what they happen to use), then the only difference is what kind of temperament and octave sequence they deliver.  So assuming comparable ability in hitting a desired target, the electronic tuner will only deliver a tuning as bad as the electronic device calculates which these days is pretty consistently good.  The aural tuner will only deliver a tuning as good as their ears can deliver at any given time.  I would argue that the electronic tuner over the course of many tunings will deliver more consistent tunings, that the machine will miss the mark less often than will the aural tuner.  This would be fairly easy to demonstrate with the results of the RPT test comparing those who took the test electronically versus aurally.  In fact, one could easily have the same person take the test with each and measure the difference.  Clearly some aural tuners don't want to accept that, but I think it's very likely the case.  Does that mean that the ETDs don't sometimes need correction?  No, of course not.  Operator error contributes and anomalies in some pianos can periodically push the calculated scale in a direction that might not be optimal.  Rarely have I found, even in those cases, that the tunings are unacceptable, but there are times when they can be refined.  Aural approaches are no protection against tunings the need refinement either.  

On very poorly scaled pianos one might judge that their ears can deliver something better after some tweaking, but usually these are decisions about what is less bad and are compromises no matter how you slice it.  

So back to the real question.  If aural tuning tends to deliver less consistent results in the temperament and octave sections than electronic tuning, then why do we insist that the testing in those sections be done aurally and exclude a purely electronic approach?

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 12:25 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] regulation without a ruler (was: Old can of worms)

There are bad aural tuners, and there are bad ETD tuners.  Use of the one method or the other does not make you a good tuner.  There are people who will learn just enough to get by either way.   My point about working for better musicians is about those tuners who have learned to tune electronically but have never developed their aural skills, not the high level technicians who tune electronically.