Hi Jim: I think you are right, as usual. What differences there may be would be so small that it would not be discernable. I predicted the same before Virgil and I went after it. Then, there would always be the arguments that, it wasn't the machine, it was the operator. Well, it would at least make for a lot of conversation. There wouldn't be a dime's worth of difference. Kinda' like the difference between Republicans and Democrats who spend a lot of agitation over whose ox is being gored; they both equally want your money and power. Jim Coleman, sr. On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 JIMRPT@AOL.COM wrote: > List, Et Al; > While the idea of a "tune off" between various techniques of tuning such as > Jim C and Virgil, i.e., aural vs ETD was useful for all of us to finally get > the idea that that a well tuned piano is just that, 'a well tuned piano', I am > having a hard time getting excited about the possibility of a "tune off" > between ETDs. > Maybe I'm missing the point here but............... it seems to me that the > variables are so many, with the results being subjectively judged and trying > to reach an objective decision is at best stretching the bounds of credulity > for me. > > It would seem to be that with two, or more, very capable ETDs that the > results on the same piano, with the same technician, with the same temperament > would be so close as to be unmeasurable, either as to "in tuneness", > stability,, etc. except by the ETDs themselves. Since we don't listen to our > pianos through the ETD while they are being played for music I hardly see the > benefit to be gained herein. > > The comparison here would be similar to two boards being joined together > with two brass screws, one having a bright finish and one having a brushed > finish and then discussing which screw is doing the best job of holding the > board together. > > But then I am a recovering aural tuner and don't know what I know about ETDs > :-) > Jim Bryant (FL) >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC