Hi Jeff and Susan, I didn't really intend to get into talking about the PTG test per se, and I don't want to go very far in that direction in this forum, but I _will_ point out that the stability test as currently administered shouldn't be affected much by temperature instability you two mentioned. Stability isn't taken from a measurement of pitch "where you put it initially" (to the extent that would be possible), but rather pitch is measured just prior to dropping "thumper" on the key (or emulating it with finger) and then measured again immediately after. So what the change in temperature did shouldn't have much effect on the measured stability. (And, BTW, I'll just note here that I agree with Jim Ellis that the "thump" is of greater force than it should be. I would favor more blows of lesser intensity, FWIW). The point I was initially wanting to make had more to do with focus. What do we focus on in seeking a quality tuning, and why. I was trying to note the fact that much of the literature produced through PTG over the past couple decades, a good deal of it in connection with the tuning test, has tended to look most closely at finer and finer gradations of equal temperament. This is a fairly natural development in connection with the tuning test, as that is what is tested to the greatest degree. I want to make plain that I think the tuning test developed by Coleman and Sanderson was a brilliant creation, and led - finally - to tuners being able to talk to one another about what they did in a productive way. But the down side is that, in what I will call a well-intentioned but misguided effort to raise standards, most of the focus has been on nit-picking the precise progression of intervals, to the detriment of looking at the piano as a whole, and of being damned certain unisons are clean and solid. In helping people learn to pass the test, they are given the impression that this is where the priorities lie. PTG is pretty much the only game in town. Steinway presents one of the only counterbalancing independent "authorities" with any credibility. I find it interesting that the "unofficial Steinway culture," as recently described by Boaz, continues to hold with not sweating the 10ths and 17ths, favoring the 5ths, stretching much more than is generally deemed acceptable within many if not most "PTG circles," and calling the stable unison king. Of course there are several within PTG, quite notably Jim Coleman, who say exactly the same thing. My real desire is to get people to talk about what they do and why, in very specific terms. What _does_ constitute a top quality tuning? Why? Says who? I am particularly interested in what musicians and discerning musical audiences think. Because that's who we tune for, not each other. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico --On Thursday, December 2, 2004 11:34 AM -0500 Jeff Tanner <jtanner@mozart.sc.edu> wrote: > Hey Fred, > Perhaps there is a good reason for this. When I took the test at one of > the regional conferences, the room we wound up finding the piano in was, > shall we say, less than ideal. The test committee was not happy with it, > but there was not a whole lot they could do about it, and they had a > bunch of tests lined up, so we basically had to deal with what we were > dealt. It was your typical hotel room, complete with "under the window" > air conditioning -- yes, right next to where they had to place the piano. > With the air off, the room temp quickly rose well above 80 degrees. The > piano was basically wrapped in plastic to shield it from air flow. With > the a/c on, and the piano wrapped in plastic, hearing partials was next > to impossible. So, you turn the air off for a while to tune a bit, then > turn it back on to try to cool the room down. That piano moved all over > the place. My stability was good, though I don't know how far away from > the original mid section measurements it was. But by the time he got > around to measuring my unisons (that's the last thing, right?), he told > me my original pitches had moved quite a bit. > > It had been, after all, what, about 3 1/2 hours ago? And stability is > checked something like 2 or 2 1/2 hours after those strings were > initially set? > > > >> And, of course, the emphasis in a majority of articles about >> tuning is >> toward finer and finer nit-picking of ET progression, and looking at >> single >> octaves in isolation (whatever width they may be - rather than looking >> at >> the piano as a whole and its entire stretch over three and four octave >> spans), giving the impression that by paying closer and closer >> attention to >> these details you will create better tunings. >> In fact, I'd argue that the opposite is true. Focusing too much >> attention and time on that nit-picking stuff leaves less time and >> attention >> available for what really matters: unisons and stability. So I'd >> suggest >> there is a second alternative to the current test, in addition to >> "good old >> boy." Relax ET standards a bit (not more than where they were in the >> 1980's) >> and create a much more rigorous unison and stability standard. My >> druthers >> would be three octaves of unisons, stability tested _before_ being >> read. >> Regards, >> Fred Sturm >> University of New Mexico >> > > Personally, I like the idea of your test here. But then, I like the idea > of a "Registered Piano Technician" being a fairly basically competent > tuner/tech. After all, the nomenclature in the title doesn't suggest any > advanced level of craftsmanship, which I think the current test standards > require. I think we'd have more RPTs and more PTG involvement if we had > a bit less involved test procedure which focused more on whether or not > the tuner's "got the idea" AND CAN STABILIZE IT, and refine the current > test idea for a "CRAFTSMAN" level tech. But, that's me. > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives Fred Sturm University of New Mexico
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC