aural tuning

[mitchkiel@olywa.net]

>For several days I have let stand a statement with which I strongly
>disagree:
>
>> >Aural tuning by far is more accurate where as ETD gets you close.
>
>I firmly believe that this statement can be proven false by a very
>simple test. I think this test should be done sometime at a significant
>technical meeting such as a convention. Here is how I would perceive the
>test to be conducted.
>
>A fine piano should be selected. A volunteer who espouses the above
>statement tunes a piano twice after it has been detuned according to
>the PTG test detuning procedures. The piano will then be read with a SAT.
>Next, the piano is detuned again and the same procedure is followed again.
>After the second round of tuning and measuring, I would propose that you
>will find the results of the two readings to not be within .3 cents on
>every note. If I am wrong, I will buy your banquet ticket at the next
>Convention.
>
>Now you all know that if I am wrong, I will take my licks, but in this
>case I'm offering not only to eat humble pie, but to pay for it.
>
>Jim Coleman, Sr.

    I agree. ETD tunings will almost always‹no, make that always‹ 
be more consistent than aural tunings. 
    But there are other points to be made in rebuttal of Dave Peake's 
contention that "Aural tuning by far is more accurate where as 
ETD gets you close."
    I've listened to lots tunings by PTG members, including tons of 
examinee tunings when I was ETS chair. Perhaps it's an unfair example, but
examinee aural tunings had a much higher failure rate than electronic
tunings. (In fact, I don't recall any ETD tunings that failed, although
there may have been one or two.)
   If we'd rather discuss the "average" RPT's aural tuning vs an ETD
tuning laid on by the same person with the same hammer skills, I
would bet a banquet ticket that the ETD would be better, especially
if there was a time limit of, say, an hour. 
   But I suppose all of us regard ourselves as "above average," (a logical
impossibility, by the way), so maybe each of us would rather think 
our wonderful selves could out-tune an ETD. I'm just a run-of-the-mill 
genius, and I can tell you that I'm hard pressed to out-tune RCT.
   And if anyone really thinks that an ETD can just "get you close,"
well then you just haven't learned how to use one.

   Now before the (low-temp) flames start, let me repeat some things
that I've said many times before:
I am *NOT* contending that ETD tunings are better than aural tunings. In
fact, the best tuning method is one that combines aural and electronic techniques.
I also have always said that every ETD tuning needs to be aurally verified, 
but then again,so do aural tunings (!). 

   But to imply that aural tuning is good and ETD tuning is bad is 
an oversimplification and, given the state of current ETD technology, misinformed.

Mitch



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mitch Kiel, RPT
authorized Reyburn CyberTuner sales and support
1-888-I-LUV-RCT (1-888-458-8728)

11326 Patsy Drive SE    
Olympia, Washington 98501 USA
email: mitchkiel@olywa.net
Visit the RCT Web site at www.reyburn.com