hold on a minute,(was general poll)

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Greetings Kjell, 
     First off, thanks for jumping in here from so far away,(from most of 
us).  I think it is magical that the internet allows techs from extremely 
disparate places to compare notes like this! I always find it interesting to 
hear what our European colleagues are doing. 
 
 inre your friend, the tech with the machine, you write:

>>But until this day (after more than 20 years with aural tuning), I have not

allowed him to assist me in the tuning process...

Aural tuning gives us a greater challenge, or??? :)<< 

      Or? it allows one to reinvent the wheel everytime he tunes. 
      Hmm, OK,  I agree that strictly aural tuning provides a greater 
challenge.  However, finding a way to make a necessary task a greater 
challenge  doesn't appeal to me anymore.  I want the shortest route to the 
nearest perfection that I can find. 
     So....., I propose a reason that the use of a sufficiently sophisticated 
ETD is a more efficient and logical manner of tuning than strictly aural.  
     My short background: I received really fine training,and spent a long 
time tuning aurally in a very demanding environment.  When the programmable 
SAT arrived,  I bought one.  I sneered at the FAC, I aurally tuned each size 
of Steinway grand and recorded the results in memory.  The next time I used 
any of these recorded tunings, I found something I thought I could improve 
upon.  This went on for about three or four uses, each one offering less 
objectionable reproduction than the last.  Finally, I ended up with recorded 
tunings for these pianos that ask for NO modification.  These are the 
templates I use.    
    I consider these "perfected" tunings only in the sense that I am not 
changing them anymore, not that they are "the best".  They pass muster in all 
uses I encounter.  I realize that the changing seasons and humidity 
considerations can cause measurable changes in the inharmonicity, but so far, 
that hasn't shown itself to be a factor,thus, these are "year-round" tunings. 
 I even base all of my temperament modifications on them, to good effect. 
   My point inre the aural tuning's shortcomings is that the "strictly-aural" 
tuner is denied the cumulative refinement that a machine will allow.  That 
tuner is not able to critique his/her own work each time they call up the 
program.  Even though the  strictly aural tuner has a hands on, sensuous 
connection with the work, they must start from scratch every time, without 
full benefit of their past efforts.  This maximizes the work,which is not a 
direction I care to pursue.  
     I did it for a long time,  but even so,  when I included the modern, 
programmable, tuning machine in my professional life, I became a much better 
and more consistant tuner, and felt the demands of the work lessen to an 
extraordinary degree. This is totally besides the ease of extreme pitch 
raises and  the whole new world of temperament variety that the machine 
provides.  
     I really believe that the techs that can combine the traditional skills 
with the most advanced technology will be able to offer the maximum value to 
their customers, and in the long run, that will be to everyone's benefit.  

regards, 
Ed Foote RPT
(is it a thread or is it a fuse?  dunno........... just got finished for the 
year, had a couple of bodacious, high-end weeks, gonna be lounging with the 
keyboard and scotch here for a week or two.  We got two more facets of the 
temperament question to discuss, too.  Anybody seen the book by Stuart 
Isacoff, called something like "Solving The Riddle"  about ET?