[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Fred Sturm]

Hi Keith,
	Your anecdote about an SAT versus a master tuning is interesting. It  
does, however, make an assumption: that the master tuning is perfect  
standard. In fact, it is merely what a committee decided was the best  
they could achieve in a reasonable period of time, in whatever state  
of freshness or exhaustion they may have found themselves (leaving  
aside personality issues, where one person may dominate/lead others,  
etc). One could put the shoe on the other foot and say that the master  
tuning scored 88% against the SAT. Which is correct? Well, we don't  
know, and have no way of knowing. We (the examiner community) are  
forbidden to use an ETD to analyze and change a master tuning. So,  
unless we work on our own outside the system, we have no data.
	I know that, as a staunch aural purist who only bought an SAT to give  
exams, I spent a good deal of time during my first months with the  
devilish machine, arguing with it. I would do some very careful aural  
tuning, then check with the device. I soon discovered that I had to  
admit that, more often than not, changes the SAT said I should made  
actually were improvements. There were exceptions, particularly where  
you change partials, or at inharmonic breaks. At the breaks, I found  
that, though I could make what I could argue were improvements, often  
they were improvements of one thing causing deterioration somewhere  
else.
	My conclusion after over ten years using ETDs is that:
1 Even the very best ETD generated tuning can be improved somewhat  
using aural means.
2 Even the very best aural tuning can be improved somewhat using  
measurement and mathematics.
3 None, absolutely none, zero of my customers will be able to tell the  
difference when I have made those improvements.
4 OTOH, many, many of my customers will hear and complain about any  
unisons which are approaching the 1.0 cent RPT standard.
	Bottom line: I can't entirely agree with your statement that "I trust  
this additional insight confirms that a tuning device can be used as a  
tool to help a technician achieve a good tuning but should not be  
relied upon as a replacement for a fine aural tuning." I would amend  
it to say that "One shouldn't rely blindly (or perhaps "deafly" is a  
better word) on any tuning generated by any ETD. One should use one's  
ear and one's brain to decide how to tune. The best of all worlds is  
where someone with knowledge and experience of aural techniques and  
theory acquires knowledge and experience with an ETD and uses the sum  
of that knowledge and experience to tune."
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Mar 11, 2008, at 3:10 PM, Keith Kopp wrote:

> John and all,
>
> To help me answer this question put to me on several occasions and  
> in anticipation of more to come, I did a non-scientific study on  
> four ETD devises. The results are attached.
>
> Keith Kopp
> Brigham Young University
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf  
> Of John Minor
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:32 PM
> To: caut
> Subject: [CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?
>
> Just curious what ETD others prefer. I'm considering making a  
> purchase soon.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Minor
> University of Illinois
> <ETD.doc><ETD follow-up.doc>