[pianotech] phenomana - experiment.

[David Love]

I read Duaine's comments to mean simply that a particular tuning could be duplicated more precisely with an ETD.  The ETD's targets will not change unless you change them or unless you remeasure and get different readings.  That's not to say that there aren't some very skilled aural tuners who can do a quality job in that respect.  But we're just talking as a general rule and I would agree with him on that.

Ron's experiment (if I understand it correctly and I only read over that part of the thread very quickly so may have missed something) is an interesting one but it's probably not that difficult to do.  Measure a piano's inharmonicity at one humidity level and then again at a different humidity level.  If you get different readings then of course you will get a different tuning curve and you can easily plot out the values from the machine you are using.  All of them have that capacity.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Renaud
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:32 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] phenomana - experiment.

David

     I have to agree with your comments below.
     
     Electronic aids do facilitate reproducing tunings in the hands of a skilled technician.
Customization can be saved and built apron. It can be done aurally. I do used saved tunings to facilitate this.

     My comments where primarily a reaction to challenge Duaine's concept of exact and perfect, Its challenging not to get drawn in by the contentious disposition of some.

 

Sent from my iPad

On 2012-05-16, at 10:18 AM, "David Love" <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> wrote:

> We all know that 100% on the tuning exam doesn't mean perfect since there are tolerances built into the scoring.  But one can get so hung up on a type A definition of perfect that the comparison of any two tunings becomes meaningless.  Soon we'll be invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to declare that we can't both measure and know where the pitch on any given note is at the same time.  Exact repeatability of tunings is clearly an advantage for machines where tunings can be saved and even where they can't, measurement error and (perhaps) humidity changes notwithstanding.  The experiment for this is quite simple really.  Put two pianos side by side that are the same make, model, scaling, and have someone tune both by ear and someone tune both with an ETD.  Measure the two pianos and compare how identical the tunings are.  Do that with a large enough statistical sample to make it meaningful and I would hypothesize that the aural tuner would exhibit a wider variation.  I'm not saying it would be an unacceptable variation, it might well still score 100% on a tuning test.  But that's not the question.  The question is how identical will the tunings be.  That one particular aural tuner you happen to know can hit your calculated and custom tuning marks is not evidence of parity.  
> 
> The question of whether the same is better or not is a different question and not really relevant. A saved tuning, as others have pointed out, does not mean that the tuning is not altered later as one customizes it more to their liking.  The difference is that on a saved and refined tuning you have the benefit of the accumulated benefit of repeated examinations without having to start from scratch every time.  The obvious benefits exist when tuning two or more pianos in unison.  
> 
> David Love
> www.davidlovepianos.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On 
> Behalf Of David Renaud
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:35 AM
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] phenomana - experiment.
> 
>   "exact", "perfect" , these words for me personally are not honest.
> 
>     Tolerances, standards, expectations, these words I can embrace as I continue to negotiate the problem. 
> 
> 
> What is thé target range to define "exact" 
> 
> "exactly" how tight are your unisons? 
> Zero, .1 cent, .3 , do you find anything within one cent acceptable?
> 
> So many times I've witnessed people who claim "perfect" unisions upon submitting to Their measurement discover they are off .4 , .6 , .9 and more. 
> 
> In your mind would scoring six 100%'s on an exam count as an "exact" replication Of the master tuning in those areas. It does not, perfection is an illusion, just look Into a bigger microscope and learn something from the variations.
> 
>  I've followed up really good aural tuners subbing for me at a concert hall, and one in particular Has an uncanny ability when I come back to it the next day to "stop the lights" throughout the tuning. His style, and my customized stored tuning files match so well, and he keeps reproducing It aurally. He is alos one of the most stress free tuners i know. There are Micro differences sure, but there always is in the end result aurally or machine, just depends how closely you look. 
> 
>  And is the same better? I could produce a good aural tuning, save it on a machine, come back and choose to stretch the very low bass just a bit more, next time choose to go with absolutely perfect 12ths. Each tuning a little different, but all of them smoother 10ths progressions then Tunelab or cyber tuner can give me without tweaking and saving it.  So they could be all slightly different, but all better then a generic machine tuning. If I used the same tests, and choices though, sure, want two successive tunings that match 100% within exam tolerances, I can do that  now. Problem is, they still are not the same, get a bigger microscope and analyze to .1 cent, not to exam tolerances. 
> 
>    "exact", "perfect" , these words for me personally are not honest.
> 
>     Tolerances, standards, expectations, these words I can embrace as I continue to negotiate the problem. 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 2012-05-16, at 7:57 AM, Kent Swafford <kswafford at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 15, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Duaine Hechler wrote:
>> 
>>> Whereas, an ETD tuner, CAN create the EXACT same tuning over, and over, and over, and over, etc.
>> 
>> 
>> This statement is false.
>> 
>> You overestimate the stability of piano tone. Tunings of the same 
>> piano vary from one to the next, regardless of how they are accomplished.
>