<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">I would like to weight in with a few thoughts.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>1. Education--CAUT has been doing well in recent years to develop classes and I believe that should be the highest priority, not only classes at the convention, but classes at every regional seminar and at local institutions. The classes should become more or less standardized and repeated annually. What CAUT should be asking is: What core knowledge can be taught across the country, not just at the annual convention. Nationwide distribution/availabiltiy should be paramount since many technicians will not be able to attend the convention annually or even regularly.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>2. Experience--How does anyone get the experience to do advanced work? Unfortunately most of that comes from seat-of-the-pants, in-the-field work. When I started at the University of Nebraska, I had been a piano technician for only 3 years with practically no experience in voicing, and no knowledge of harpsichords or other historical keyboards. I learned on the job. That first 5 years was hell. The 25 years after that were great. CAUT classes/materials need to be experience based. We already have books that provide general knowledge.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>3. The Guidelines--One goal of the Guidelines was to inform administrators about what the job includes so that they would appreciate the intricacies of the job and the pay scale would rise. This hasn't really happened; our document is seen as self serving. Therefore the main value of the document is to inform technicians about what they're getting into when they apply for university jobs. CAUT education needs to continue to inform all technicians about the nature of university work so that when the interview comes around, they'll be able to differentiate what we do from what all other staff people do. You can't expect a higher pay scale when your immediate supervisor may be a staff person that isn't making as much as what you're asking. Administrators don't see us as any different than a stage manager, administrative assistant, or, yes, a specialized custodian. Until that perception changes, or until applicants refuse jobs that don't pay wages that are competitive with private concert work, then university techs will continue to be underpaid.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>4. Testing--Until RPT is an accepted nationwide standard, I would put testing at a low priority. If testing is the current priority, the cart is being put in front of the horse. The problems we have with RPT testing are IMHO greater for a CAUT standard. The test would have to provide a better way to address testing problems like nationwide availability, qualified and experience examiners, testing that is fair and objective (using ETD's when ETD's can be problematic as repeatably accurate), length of time to give the test, using volunteers vs developing paid examiners, etc. A complete tuning, for example, sounds good as a goal for a testing standard, but implementing that seems to hark back to the good ole boy days. </DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Richard West, retired (more or less)</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On Oct 12, 2007, at 5:46 PM, Fred Sturm wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV><DIV>On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just a thought on the tuning test idea.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>The present RPT test is to my mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and execute.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Nor do I believe it should be necessary to have it such.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>A tuning standard can be easily defined in terms of what decided upon sets of coincident partials behave like when tuned.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>As a banal example, one could simple ask the examinee to execute a bass tuning from say D3 downwards in terms of exact 6:3 types. This is extremely easy to measure afterwards and requires no prior set up... outside of a reasonably detuned instrument.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>It doesn't take much imagination to see how this principle could be applied to encompass a real tuning that is quite acceptable in real life terms.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>One added benefit of this approach would be that the examinee would know ahead of time exactly what is expected of him/her.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>This is far from always the case in the present system.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>I would think it would be nonproblematic to extend this approach to a very demanding test.</FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal Helvetica; min-height: 14px; "><BR></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Cheers</FONT></DIV><DIV style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RicB</FONT></DIV> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Hi Ric,</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for a caut tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials for consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you mention. And there are many other possibilities as well. Our initial plan is to look at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 partial matches, and see how evenly they progress. If something is out of kilter, it should show up pretty clearly.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask the examinee to do anything but tune "your best concert tuning," explaining that we will look particularly for crystal clear and rock solid unisons, and for evenness of stretch in the outer octaves. IOW, no artificial constraints, just do what you normally do in that circumstance.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 cents tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though well within what I hope most of us are producing on a day to day basis. Beta testing will reveal whether or not this is so, and whether we might need to fudge a little to, say, 0.6 or something, and possibly more in high treble where ETD resolution can be a problem.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it is at least an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On the face of it, it seems like it should work like a charm, but proof is in the pudding.<BR><DIV><DIV>Regards,</DIV><DIV>Fred Sturm</DIV><DIV>University of New Mexico</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>