The Great Tune-Off

[Bill Ballard]

I am thrilled to hear of the Chicago Chapter's event (there have been
references to it in the previous weeks) and concur with the kudos. Only
and organization such as PTG has the ability to pull off such complex
production.

On 10/17/96, Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU> rote:
<<Totals were: Coleman 306 Smith 238, undecided 120.  There will be a
full report in the Jan Journal.>>

I'm not statistician, but I think we can draw some interesting
conclusions. At any instance where an audience member might register a
preference, there was an 82% chance that they had a preference to
register (544/644), However, when a preference was registered, the
division (56% and 44%) was not statistically significant. Maybe more of a
divergence will show up when you look at the data strictly from the
adagio sections, versus the prestos where the intervals go by too quickly
for aural judgements.

On 10/17/96, Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU> rote:
<<Virgil and I do not consider  this a win for either, but a win for
both.  If we had both done better, it would have been 50-50.  We are
hoping that other more virile and younger technicians will pick up the
gaunlet and continue
this tradition so that we will all benefit more in the future.>>

I agree that it's a win-win situation, but I don't think that any
movement from the already statistically insignificant 44-56% to an even
50-50% has anything to do with how well you and Virgil do your work. What
you folks have provided for us is a proof in the pudding. Nominally, the
comparison was between aural and electronic tuning. What further
highlights the results is that the aural tuner was no man-off-the-street,
but Virgil Smith. No one could better illustratethe eccentricities which
can develope during a tuning when the human mind is making the decisions.
I say this with all due respect and some affection for Virgil. But I also
say it as someone who has struggled through his written explanations. I
have also left his tuning classes (Philly '91, and KC '94) praying that
under relaxed conditions Virgil could produce a tuning acceptable by
conventional standards. Here Virgil made a proper presentation (though
not the first time before the Chi Chapt).

What may we learn from this? In this test a jury of peers showed no clear
choice for either acoustic or aural tuning. Presumably, unless Virgil
restained some of his more unconventional inclinations, his aural tuning
should have been a good contrast to the more ordered electronic tuning.
The extent to which Virgil's tuning differed from what the rest of us
aural tuners would have done is actually the width of tolerance allowable
for a pleasing tuning. As such it is also a lesson in tolerance for
unconventional ideas such as Virgil's.

But in all of this we have to keep in mind Jim's report that  he "tuned
unisons by ear except in the treble." He continues, "My personal feeling
is that during the listening we were concerned more with the unisons than
anything else.  The slight difference in voicing, temperament or octaves
may have influenced some, but with whatever the slight variations there
were, the results were so close."

Just what do we have? Does it really boil down to a jury with no clear
preference in a choice between Jim's and Virgil's unisons, both of which
were done aurally? Well, if both tunings are in somebody's SAT or RCT,
then we've really got something to "analyze the bejeebers out of".
(Correct me, is this the first time a Virgil tuning has been "captured"?)
Most important of course is the common effort of all involved to judge
two tunings the only way they can be judged. My hat is off to the entire
crew.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter

(P.S. Sorry about running on. If I talked to human beings more, I'd talk
less to this computer.)

"The truth is inside you, Don Octavio. I cannot help you find that." The
mother of a delusional patient to his psychiatrist in "Don Juan DeMarco"