[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Chris Solliday]

Thanks Fred for articulating so well some concepts that I have been
considering for quite awhile. I hope someone will take you up on that
experiment. One thing though is that when you make that first octave down to
A3 you are already establishing stretch, at least when I tune aurally or
with my SAT III. You are so right about the precise setting of the A4 and
then comes the one we have to fish for, that first octave that sets up the
stretch for the whole temperament and of course everything that follows. It
reminds me of a tennis lesson I once got from Jack Kramer. He said the most
important shot in tennis is the serve and the second most important shot is
the return of serve and so on. Duh. Seems similar to me to tuning.
And right on with the unisons, the other night I had stand by for Chick
Corea and at intermission I asked if he wanted any piano service in my
typical wry tone and he playfully pointed to the stage and said "chase those
unisons, always chase those unisons."
Usually I do a touch up by ear but it was so noisy I retruned to the wings
and fished out the SAT and made a difference. Worth every penny of the time
and half the house was paying me.
Thanks,
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?


> 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
>
>