[CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?

[David Ilvedson]

I think if you ask most ETD using tuners why they use the machine instead of just aurally, one of the answers will be
they suddenly found their solid tunings were in fact drifting slightly...i.e. going back over notes previous tuned, even within the same unison you were tuning...;-]
Aurally, we rely on one string as being set and tuning the other strings to it and venturing out...but if it changes?   If you aurally tune with a temp strip and come back to do the unisons you are kidding yourself...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Susan Kline" <skline at peak.org>
To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
Received: 3/16/2008 1:38:10 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] electronic tuning device preference?


>At 06:51 AM 3/14/2008, Fred wrote:
>>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.


>Fred, you've written several excellent posts in this thread, which
>I've saved. I think I've cruised through most of this thread, at least
>superficially, but I haven't seen one question addressed:

>Which way of tuning is more enjoyable?

>I tune aurally because I enjoy the process. A few ETD tuners and
>musicians now and then have listened to me tuning and said
>that it was nice to listen to it progressing, sort of calming.
>I've watched just one ETD tuning start to finish - it did not
>look like a pleasant way to spend one's time.

>Something about the aural process makes me feel in contact with
>the piano in a very basic way, listening to the full tonal envelope,
>enjoying all the intervals, savoring the creaminess of the
>unisons and the tension of the fourth and fifth expansions
>and contractions, feeling the stretch and the balance between
>sections. I don't think I'd really enjoy delegating
>that contact to a machine.

>So, the ETD may get one to a reasonable destination, but did one
>enjoy the trip? If not, how much should we allow some notion of
>"efficiency" to rule our lives?

>People say that the ETD saves them time - but, in tuning, I can
>move along about as fast as it takes me to get the hammer from
>pin to pin, and to set the unisons properly. The temperament
>is usually about a five minute task. How much more time
>than that could an ETD save?

>Just a few observations, not trying to change anyone's mind ...

>Susan Kline
>OSU, Newport Arts Center