[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Fred Sturm]

On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Keith Kopp wrote:

> Fred,
>
> I have not argument with all you said.
>
> I also like your amendment to my conclusion:
>
> "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."
>
> In fact, I already have pasted it into my document. I hope you are  
> okay with that.
>
> Keith


Hi Keith,
	You are welcome to use my words, but first I am going to say a little  
more about your "ETD Follow-up" text. The gist that I get from what  
you wrote - the implication - is that a tuning generated  
mathematically (an ETD tuning, with an SAT tuning as the example) may  
be good enough to pass the tuning exam, even at 100%, but really it  
isn't as good as an aural tuning. Taking a finer scoring parameter, a  
number of "errors" are identified: the master tuning and the SAT  
tuning diverge a fair amount at "half parameter." And since an aural  
tuner (exemplified by Virgil Smith) can make an aural judgment and  
change of as little as 0.2 cents, one can assume that a really good  
aural tuning may be within that degree of accuracy.
	The underlying model behind this reasoning assumes that pianos are  
very individual, full of inconsistencies, and that a good aural tuner  
adapts the tuning very specifically, note by note, to the piano, in a  
way impossible for a "machine." The ETD tuning is assumed to be too  
"straight," lacking the subtleties of a good aural tuning. ETD tunings  
achieve very high scores merely because they are good approximations,  
but lack those specific variations that constitute a truly excellent  
tuning.
	I reject these implications. Based on my experience and knowledge, I  
don't believe that individual instruments, have a very high degree of  
"idiosyncrasy." Rather, I believe that in most circumstances, pianos  
of the same model will all accept the same tuning without modification  
(with very, very few exceptions), and that the pianos used for the  
tuning exam have such a degree of evenness to their scaling that the  
"perfect ideal tuning" will comprise a very smooth mathematical curve  
for the most part. I believe that most of the "bumps and zigzags" of a  
good aural tuning, exemplified by master tunings, arise from human  
frailty in judgement and execution, and that this accounts for most of  
the identified "errors" in the anecdote you describe.
	To resolve the question, one could set the SAT tuning on the piano,  
score it using the master tuning as the master, and try to verify the  
"errors." And then do the opposite, setting the master tuning on the  
piano and scoring according to the SAT as master, and again try to  
verify the errors. Preferably with a team that didn't know which was  
which. And, to keep it accurate, making doubly sure that the piano  
actually stayed put precisely (re-check the tuning often during the  
process for spot on accuracy).
	It is interesting that people who quibble about a tuning generated by  
an ETD not being "good enough" even if it scores 100% in the tuning  
test, will at the same time accept the proposal that a person who can  
achieve a 90% score is capable of overseeing the creation of the  
tuning against which 100% is measured, with the assistance of two  
people who scored 80%. There is a bit of absurdity in all this  
argument about relative "perfection."
	My own opinion is based on a lot of thought and experience. I offer a  
couple observations about the difficulty of creating a "perfect"  
emulation of equal temperament on a real piano through purely aural  
means: how many tuners can consistently achieve the fairly  
straightforward feat of matching A4 to a pitch source within 0.5  
cents? I don't believe there are many. I know I can't. How about  
within 0.1 cents? I can do that every day using my ETD. I know people  
who purchased an ETD solely for the purpose of transferring pitch. How  
about the first step of temperament: A3 tuned to A4? How many can do  
that consistently (on the same piano) within 0.3 cents? My point isn't  
to be annoying anal, but simply to suggest that even the finest aural  
tuning skills will be subject to limitations of judgment and  
execution. Any small "error" will have to be accounted for somehow,  
and I think the the "bumps and zigzags" constitute a good job of  
"hiding" or "incorporating" the "errors." When this is well done, the  
tuning will be acceptable as a master tuning because it gives every  
appearance of conforming to all aural tests. But it _will_ have bumps  
and zigzags, and thus will vary from a mathematical curve.
	Having written all the above, I will go on to say that I don't  
believe it really matters. I believe that any aural tuning approaching  
a master tuning reasonably closely will be acceptable to our clients,  
as will any mathematically generated tuning that is well-matched to  
the piano - with the additional requirement that all unisons be very  
clean and solid. I would say that there is a very wide range of what  
is acceptable when it comes to temperament (and its extension to the  
rest of the piano), probably wider than any of us is willing to accept  
personally. I think we should focus our energy where it matters: on  
unisons. That is where we make or break our reputations.
	I guess I should go on to say that in all the above I am referring  
specifically to the "temperament" aspect of tuning as opposed to the  
"stretch" aspect. The stretch aspect is a different kettle of fish,  
and it is there that the need for both aural and electronic skills  
working together becomes most evident.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu