Aural?

[John M. Formsma]

Kristinn and List,

My tuning career began in 1991 with the SATII. I had little knowledge of
tuning at that time, and probably did some really bad tunings. For instance,
I did not know much then about the effect of pitch raises on the final
product--one pass watching the lights, and I thought I was fine. Some
tunings sounded OK, while others did not. What did I know, really? All one
has to do is get some FAC numbers, and go, right? Hardly.

Anyway, since then, I have learned a lot more. :-) I "practiced" with the
SAT for some time, trying to learn to hear the beat rates, octaves, etc.
Some time around the first of this year, I decided to pry myself from the
SAT and "force" myself to do all aural tunings, no matter what the cost.
Many laborious hours were devoted to the practice of it, and things finally
began to gel in my mind. Now tuning is not so mysterious as it once was. Not
only can I now do a good job aurally, I know what sounds good and why. As a
SAT-only user, I could never have that advantage. For instance, the VTD-only
user may find it hard to tweak an octave that has dropped once the unisons
are tuned (assuming strip muting the whole piano). He may hear the bad
octave, but all he can do is go back to that note on the display and make
the lights stop. What if the rest of the piano has changed slightly from
what the VTD originally had? Then the newly tuned note will still not sound
as good as it could. Knowing how to manipulate the entire piano to achieve
the "best" sound is a skill hard to attain for a VTD-only tuner.

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to tune with my SAT for the first time
this year (except for this spring when I had to tune two together). It was a
small Baldwin grand with lots of falseness. Knowing that the SAT would help
with this one, I charged the battery and brought it along. Tuning was sooooo
boring watching those darn little lights! It was actually a little bit
slower because I had to retrain myself not to use my ears, but use my eyes.
Aaggh! So I chunked it out the window. No, I really didn't, but, seriously,
aural tuning is what I prefer now.

Even though I do all aural tunings, I would still like to have RCT, but
would rather have the $1800+ (laptop & software) instead. If I can train
myself to tune ET, then other temperaments should not be a problem. And, I
now know how to manipulate my temperament to suit myself, which I do
occasionally. (I previously had no idea how to do that with the SAT other
than plug in someone else's numbers and still not have a clue what was
really happening.)

I am glad for the technology like the SAT because it "helped" me learn more
about tuning. However, the most that I have learned has come from my own
reading and skull scratching. Having done both electronic and aural tuning,
I now can say that I wish I had begun tuning aurally. Tuning strictly
aurally has sharpened my ability in a way that a VTD simply could not do for
me. Something one fellow said to me at this past convention has really stuck
with me. We were talking about VTDs and aural tunings. He has never used a
VTD, and made the comment, "So what if my tunings do not sound 'as good as'
(read 'exactly') like a VTD--they sound good to me." While there could be an
aspect in that statement of haughtiness or throwing caution to the wind,
that statement help free me from the shackles of calculated tuning curves.
:-)  Now, I don't worry at all about the VTD's "superiority." I know what is
good because I have invested the time in learning it. I am not bragging for
I know there are many others who can tune better and faster than I. Despite
that, I have a confidence in myself that could only have come through
learning to tune aurally.

"One cannot get something for free." That is what I say to anyone who wants
to achieve competency in tuning. He must do the skull work himself, and if
done well, will profit from it.

Sorry for the tome. It is probably more than you asked for, but it is my
experience to date.

John Formsma
Blue Mountain, MS