aural tuning

[Ron Nossaman]

Ahoy Jim B,

Now Jim, you rascal. You know that Dr. C. didn't make any claims on the
correctness of either aural or ETD tuning, so be nice. He was questioning
the consistency of reproduction of an entirely aurally produced tuning (of
no defined quality) and I think he's right. I'd bet that same banquet ticket
that I couldn't reproduce a tuning aurally within a 0.3 cent tolerance and I
can whomp up a pretty presentable aural tuning on a good day with the wind
at my back and the kids in school. The fact that a 'best sounding' tuning
can be produced by so many different methods, with so many different
temperaments just points out the difficulty of trying to quantify
subjectivity. The best (subjectively) and the most uniform (objectively)
tunings almost certainly are ETD augmented aural, or aurally augmented ETD.
I haven't abandoned straight aural because it seems like it would really
hurt to whack yourself in the knee with a SAT. Maybe the SAT IV will be
smaller, or padded.

Ron   


>In a message dated 6/16/98 11:04:15 AM, pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU wrote:
>
><<"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.""<<
>
>Dr Coleman;
> I won't disagree with you here however ................I do have a question
>:-)
>Is a tuning that is most accurately, mathmatically, correct, necessarily the
>best sounding tuning?
>Jim Bryant (FL)
>
>
--pasted-- (No Jim, not you #-) )

> Or as Dr. Coleman said, as he so adroitly sidestepped my question :-), 
"I don't really know. There is so much variation possible.".
Jim Bryant (FL)
"just carry a clipbaord Son, nobody will question you"
Faintly Dull

 Ron