aural tuning

DGPEAKE@aol.com DGPEAKE@aol.com
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 21:48:54 EDT


In a message dated 98-06-16 11:04:15 EDT, you write:

<< 
 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 know I am opening up a can of worms here, Jim.  If this is the case, why
bother to aural tune? Why go through all of the training to become a good
tuner?  If an ETD is as good as an aural tuning, anybody can master it in days
after learning how to use the ETD.

We know it is not true of course.  We must be able to aurally verify.  The
most sophisticated ETD can be wrong.

I am a strong supporter of ETD's and used my SAT to the point of nearly
wearing it out.  The combination of the aural as well as ETD works very well.

My humble opinion of course.

Dave Peake, RPT
Portland, OR


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC