[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[Fred Sturm]

On Mar 14, 2008, at 8:44 AM, Keith Kopp wrote:

> Fred,
>
> While all this is good it goes miles above what my intentions were.  
> The first was a simple comparison to show that the major differences  
> between the different devises were not as much as how good they are  
> but what features you want. All four will give basically good  
> results. Then I wanted to give some reasons why the technicians  
> chose the specific units they use. The several comments that have  
> been made the last few days have given additional insight on why  
> different technicians make the choices they do.
>
> My ETD follow-up comment were again to be a simple answer to the  
> proposed question: If they all score so high, while should I learn  
> to tune by ear and why can't I just take the test with a machine?  
> Again, the recent posts have taken this way beyond my simplistic  
> answer of: You need to learn aural tuning skills.
>
> It appears I wrote a simple sentence or two and now I have enough  
> material to write a novel. Isn't it grand? I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Keith

Hi Keith,
	I don't want to be obnoxious and argumentative, but the way I see it,  
your example actually doesn't do a very good job of explaining why  
someone who tunes with ETD should learn aural skills (at least IMO).  
It focuses on the ability to create a temperament by aural means (the  
"errors" of the ETD generated tuning are errors of temperament). I  
believe the main reason we all need good aural skills (even if we tune  
using an ETD) is to make good judgments about stretch, about 8ves,  
double 8ves, triple 8ves, 12ths and 19ths, and how to use them to  
create a balanced tuning appropriate to the instrument (and to taste).  
Along with acuity in judging unisons. I think there is far too much  
emphasis in PTG on learning to execute a temperament sequence  
successfully by ear, and not nearly enough on how to "tune a whole  
instrument."
	As for the question "Why can't I just take the test with a machine?"  
I certainly don't want to go there in a discussion on this list. But  
from an educational point of view, I think we should focus much more  
on unisons and large intervals, and much less on aural temperament  
sequence. Setting aside the "practical" purpose of "passing the RPT  
test," I think it is useful and informative to do at least some work  
on aural temperament sequences, to get a better handle on the various  
relationships involved in dividing the octave. But I don't know that  
honing those skills serves much purpose, other than to develop an  
appreciation of the difficulty involved in achieving a consistently  
high level of accuracy. The ETD does the job of creating a temperament  
quite well.
	But we do need our ears and brains to make sure the ETD generated  
tuning is appropriate in its stretch, and to flag the times when  
something goes quite considerably wrong - as it does more frequently  
than one would like. Usually it is a matter of bad data, probably due  
to factors like soundboard resonance, standing waves and the like.  
(The machines measure accurately, but pianos produce  
"uncharacteristic" partial pitches in unpredictable ways). Whatever  
the cause, sometimes a reading taken very carefully will result in a  
tuning chart that is abominable for the given instrument, and one  
needs to be on one's toes to flag those times (doesn't affect the  
temperament, but it sure does affect the octaves and overall stretch).  
That, IMO, is one of the main reasons why we need aural skills (and  
need to use our brains: the numbers will usually tell us that  
something untoward has happened, and that we should investigate  
further).

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