On Apr 17, 2010, at 10:16 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote: > Carl Root said: Do you (or does anyone) know of a full time tech > who has used an ETD for a period of time (enough to really > understand how it works), then decided, for whatever reason, to go > back to tuning aurally? > > Guilty, as charged. I've used an ETD for years for pitch raises and > emergency speed tuning. For a few years I used an ETD to do most of > my tuning. I've had an SAT (and still have one) and an RCT. At one > time I had of a goal of putting 100 tunings of the pianos at the > university on my ETD. Essentially I was using the machine to > supertune and store those tunings. I stopped doing that and > returned to strictly aural tuning for several reasons: I'm guessing you used the RCT only briefly compared to the SAT. Storing tunings in RCT is a trivial matter and could be done during a single tuning cycle at a University. I record each piano for each tuning, but I suspect retrieving stored files works fine. > > 1. My aural skills were slipping as I depended more on the ETD. I > had worked too hard on developing those skills to have them atrophy > and depend more and more on flashing lights. Flashing lights is a SAT thing. :-) I've tuned aurally a few times (battery / adapter issues) and had no trouble using the procedures I used for many years. I noted the aural tunings in my records so I could see how they held up next time I tuned the piano using RCT. No problems. > > 2. A piano is heard and not seen. Mistakes and sloppiness can > occur whether a person tunes aurally or with an ETD. My tendency > was to trust the machine more than my ears. I determined that I > didn't want to go that way. I think it would be harder to ignore an off-center spinner. Basically you'd have to ignore both eyes and ears, so I'll vote for RCT as a means of achieving consistency. . . . . but yes, it's about how you feel mentally and physically, rather than the method. > > 3. Stored tunings were not always reliable. Pianos change from > season to season. I found that a "supertuning" stored in one season > was not a supertuning in another--the dirty little secret behind the > tuning test. The differences were not major, but they were enough > to be annoying having worked so hard to get a high quality tuning > and then storing it. No opinion, but many others with loads of experience have good things to say about stored tunings. > > 3. Tuning by ear doesn't really take any longer and is more > satisfying personally. ETD'ers seem to believe that "doing all > those checks" takes such a long time. It doesn't, not if you're at > the top of your game. I can touch up a concert instrument in as > short a time aurally as I can "messing with" the buttons and lights > of a machine. Using checks as you tune is optional, IMHO, because all the checking has been done as part of the initial calculation. Checks take longer by definition. With RCT you can then touch up a tuning without touching your computer. If something slipped, you'll see it immediately. Second-guessing the musicality of a calculated tuning is a different issue. > > 4. I don't necessarily believe tuning is "artistic" as some would > claim. I'm more inclined to see it as a puzzle that needs to be > solved for every piano. That's the challenge for me. Listening to > what the piano is telling me, and bringing out the best in it, > regardless of the quality of the instrument. Time and time again > I've been surprised at the results. And satisfied that I did a > great job the "old fashioned" way. It is indeed a science. . . . . but I solved this puzzle well over 10,000 times before deciding to listen to the good things my peers were saying about ETDs. BTW, I started with a SAT. Didn't like it; sold it. > > 5. Negative attitude. Some say, "I do really good work and make my > customers happy, but I don't know about Joe over there. He's a > ________ tuner, and, well, his tuning is__________. " I've seen > that attitude and I don't like it whether it comes from an aural > tuner or and ETD guy. A lot of early ETD users were afraid of negative client reactions. My clients are mostly fascinated and want to know how it works. Talking smack within the profession doesn't interest me. > > 6. Customer satisfaction is important, but ultimately you tune for > yourself. You set the standard, not your customer. If you're > tuning professionally, your standard should be a lot higher than > most any customer and if you meet your standards, your customer will > be satisfied. Developing your skill aurally and electronically goes > along with the PTG philosophy of continuing your education and > improvement. Not to parse words, but although I have set a standard that I try to adhere to consistently, I think it's important to be clear that we're tuning for clients, not for ourselves. > > 7. I tend to be a "universalist." I know I need a flame suit for > what I'm about to say. But I believe that all the talk of tuning > styles and degrees of stretch is overblown and wider ETD use has > exacerbated the problem. If you hold to the "philosophy" that > fifths cannot be expanded beyond perfect and that thirds need to be > smooth, then I just don't think your choices for stretch are all > that great. Otherwise your fourths are way too noisy in the middle > of the piano and the 17ths in the top are obnoxiously fast. If you > use the ETD ruler to determine how to stretch, you may put a note in > a place that fits the ruler but is less than optimal because it's > somewhere between what the partials might indicate. In other words, > you might choose to add a 1 cents stretch which does put a note > slightly high, but it still doesn't nicely fit in with the partials > of several notes. It's a rather arbitrary setting based on the > reading of one partial. Yes, I know tuning is always a compromise. > It's just that I think the compromises are easier when done aurally. RCT's ability to calculate tunings matching different partials in different sections of the piano is just what we do aurally, no? You can predetermine the amount of stretch, which, as with most things, is a matter of experience. > > 8. Finally (this has gotten longer than I intended) I don't believe > we've really defined our standards very well. The classic example > is the definition of a octave stretching. The 10th is supposed to > be the same as or "slightly" faster than the 3rd. And the 17th is > the same as or slightly faster than the 10th. The term slightly > isn't very precise. Aural tuners take advantage of this lack of > clarity by too often over stretching the treble. After all, you > don't want to leave a note flat so leave it good and high for > safety's sake. ETD'ers will leave notes between the cracks, not > lining up with any particular partials very well, but making a nice > spot on the measuring stick. I agree that many aural tuners tend to tune the treble too sharp - I used to - but again, lining up partials is arguably more precise, not less, with RCT, and - most importantly - is something you can control based on whatever factors you think are important. I didn't intend this to be a sales pitch for RCT, but it's the only program I know and works quite well, both theoretically and in practice. Carl > > 9. Finally, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? So far, only one. :-) > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Carl Root wrote: > >> Dear diehard aural tuners, >> >> I'm curious . . . . . >> >> Do you (or does anyone) know of a full time tech who has used an >> ETD for a period of time (enough to really understand how it >> works), then decided, for whatever reason, to go back to tuning >> aurally? >> >> I think I'm correct in saying that most of the RPTs discussing this >> who are ETD users passed their exams prior to >> "converting". . . . . . whereas the aural tuners in this debate >> haven't run a machine through its paces, so their observations >> aren't really observations, but rather concerns about how they >> imagine it works. >> >> An ETD "listens" to all the intervals at once, initially, and >> produces the smoothest tuning that the piano's scale will allow. >> You can then tweak it to your heart's content, but I'll bet that >> most of the time, in the process of "improving" some intervals, >> you're making others worse (keep in mind, you can only hear one >> interval at a time . . . . not very efficient.) >> >> OK, so it has your personal stamp on it, but unless the client is >> impressed with your "improvement", I don't see the point. I have >> other outlets for expressing myself artistically. >> >> Carl D. Root, RPT > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100418/004ac57c/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC