Aural?

[David Ilvedson]

Richard,

I think we are have an understanding and it has been fun.

David I.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]On Behalf
> Of Richard Brekne
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 3:53 AM
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: Aural?
>
>
>
>
> David Ilvedson wrote:
>
> I deleted the first part as it seems we have come to aggreement
> so far... grin..
>
> > >> There is nothing better, IMHO, as an ETD &
> > > the ears (hey that would be cool, an ETC with ears).  You
> can't beat that
> > > combination with a "certain something".
> >
> > >I think you misunderstand what I mean by that certain
> something... I say
> > >this because as I meant the term to be understood, the two
> sentences you
> > just
> > >wrote are in conflict with one another. That "certain
> something" is exactly
> > that
> > >human
> >
> > ???????
>
> Now its my turn to receive the "What the frog ? " symbol...grin. For
> clarification I meant that that "certain something" is the human judgement
> element. And that in the end is what we go by. You use an ETD to
> get you to a
> point where your ear can take over.  It seems like in the first
> sentence you say
> nothing is better then using an ETD and then letting your ears
> decide at the
> end, and in the second sentence refute that very statement..

> given what I
> meant by "certain something" mind you).
>
> >
> > If you ever get a chance to play a Kurzweil electric piano,
> check out the G#
> > below middle C.  The unison, if you can call it that, has a
> real good beat
> > in it.  I believe that every single Kurzweil has the same beating G#.  I
> > think it gives it a more piano sound.  I think that "certain something"
> > might just be the errors they will inevitably have.
>
> Grin... thats another "certain something" and another aspect of
> piano work. What
> you say is true enough, but we were talking about tuning, and
> really from a bit
> more of a philosophical veiwpoint. (Ginas origionating posting)
>
> > Any tuning will have
> > its share of compromise/errors and are part of a piano and we live with
> > them.  Maybe this makes them a little more interesting?
>
> Aggreed.
>
> > When we try to tune
> > each of the strings of a unison perfectly in tune with each other we
> > inevitably fail and that's what makes a piano sound like a
> piano.  I believe
> > you are using TuneLab?  How does your tuning fork/aural tuning
> measure up?
> > Has it made you make a changes in your tuning?
>
> I have used TuneLab in a completely different sense then it was
> meant to be
> used. I tune A440 by ear and fork and do the temperament by ear.
> Then I measure
> the partial ladders for each of these notes, and compare
> appropriate partials of
> octaves upwards and downwards to these as I tune them. As I
> extend outwards I
> need to measure more notes to be able to get enough information
> to tune the
> extremeties. This is time consuming and I do it to train my ear
> and mind to
> better hear and put into perspective what I am listening to. It
> has helped me
> immensly, especially from an intellectual point of view. But it
> hasnt directly
> changed my conception of stretch or anything. I suppose reading
> Baldersins book
> influenced that more then anything else.
>
> I scored 100 % on the pitch part of the test, coming within 0.1
> cents of 440.
> Tho I do not myself usually use a tuning fork to establish pitch. 440 is a
> number and only a number.. makes absolutely no difference how you
> get pitch
> setting done.
>
> >
> >
> > > A SAT and
> > > the RCT can get a 100% on all the sections just by stopping
> the lights.
> >
> > >We return to that human quality in the end.
> >
> > Exactly.  That is where I want to use my human ear, in the end.
>  Not at the
> > beginning
> > where it is wasted but when I have the string close to in tune.  After
> > tension changes have happened and the string is ready to finish.
>
> Different strokes for different folks... but again this really is
> off the point
> of Ginas posting is it not ?
>
> >
> > Jim Coleman Sr. did a class on unisons sometime ago and he
> tuned the piano
> > with I believe perfect 5ths (not sure exactly) but the point is that the
> > entire
> > class of piano tuners couldn't tell that it wasn't in equal
> temperment.  His
> > point
> > was the importance of the unison.  The class did perceive,
> define and judge
> > his
> > tuning What does this mean to human perception?
>
> His tuning was no doubt fine indeed. It was consistant and
> followed a distinct
> pattern. The exercise points out that tuning a piano to a particular
> specification (ie temperament) is more then simple hearing. There are
> relationships between partials we have to both understand
> intellectually and
> learn to hear from that standpoint. We need to do this exactly so
> that when that
> "certain something" has to take over.. we know we are at that
> point and are best
> equipped to make good judgement as to what to do. Getting to this
> point with an
> ETD or not is irrelevant as far as that goes.
>
> > > Richard B. wrote:
> > >
> > > >if you cant hear a thing, their is no sense of its sound.
>
> But this is still the essence of Ginas point as took it. All the
> rest of what we
> have been talking about is more methodology me thinks.
>
> > >
> > > David Ilvedson, RPT
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Brekne
> > RPT, N.P.T.F.
> > Bergen, Norway
>
> --
> Richard Brekne
> RPT, N.P.T.F.
> Bergen, Norway
>
>
>