Tuning forks (and ETD's)

[A440A@AOL.COM]

>Brian  wrote:
>> It's not the machines that I object to.  My objection is to each
>> human's tendency to follow the path of least resistance.  Just because
>> something is easier, or more accurate, doesn't insure that it's still
>> better. 
   Greetings, 
      We need to define "better".  For many, "more accurate" means  better , 
for others, speed will define the quality of the tuning.  There is also the 
personal-job-satisfaction quality that will cause a tech to feel "better" 
about the tuning.  All these are valid perspectives for various individuals, 
and a tuner's clientele will eventually reflect their concept of "better".   
    I want it all.  I want the tuning to be exactly as I have envisioned it 
to be, and I want it fast, consistant and dependable.  The job satisfaction 
comes from the most efficient, easy, profitable application of my skills that 
I can manage.  The tool that has helped more than anything else is the 
electronic tuner, with a programmable memory.
     After many years as an aural tuner,  I added the SAT and it made me a 
better tuner.  By saving an aural tuning into memory a machine allows the 
tech to self-critique their work and refine it.  After several uses, the save 
aural tuning will be superior all of those used in its evolution, and then 
the tech has the best of both worlds, their own perfected tuning in an easy 
to deliver box!
    This cumulative refinement is not possible to the strictly aural tuner, 
as they don't get a second chance.  They must continually reinvent the 
temperament each time they tune a given instrument.  By having a machine hold 
your work up to you for review, you gain more control over your output.  It 
WILL make your work more consistant and controllable. (The other major 
plusses have to do with incomparable pitch raise efficiency and the freedom 
of using all the temperaments).  The machine is a power tool, and programmed 
to reflect an individual tech's idea of an ideal tuning, allows refinement 
and experimentation beyond the normal aural investigations.  
    And I agree with Tom,  using machines before learning to tune  aurally  
often forms a crippling dependance.
Regards, 
Ed Foote