ETD unisons

[Richard Brekne]

Hi Jim.

And let me start off by saying what a real pleasure I had meeting and talking
with you in Reno. You were one of the very few I had time to chat with being
tucked away up in the exams room the whole convention. I coulda done lots
worse :) We had fun helping that dutch fellow prepare didnt we ?

Anyways...what I want to know on this subject matter is if you can honestly
say, hand on heart that your tuning in that tuneoff with Virgil way back when
would have been the same had you been totally ear-cuffed to put it that way.
If you had simply not been able to hear period, would your tuning have been
the same ? Also, then what criteria was used to evaluate these two tunings ?
And what qualifiers are necessary for (if it was so) the experiment to work
again ?  An experienced ear tuner ?? a well scaled grand (whatever that really
is) ??   Anything else ?

I suppose given all I have learned about these matters this past three years
is going to make me a skeptic regardless, as I said in my last post. We all
know that evenly spacing any given partial will result in all others being to
some degree or not uneven. That in itself should be enough tho there is more
to point at for sure.

Now dont anyone get me wrong.. I am not in opposition to the use of ETD's...
quite the opposite and that should be clear to anyone who has read all what I
have had to say on the matter. I have improved vastly because of my experience
with them and continue to do so. But I see no reason to overstate their value
either.

In stating I belive its possible to learn to out tune a machine there are no
value judgements placed on any tuning method that should disturb anyone. That
is unless one finds it disturbing to encourage a continuing learning process.

Back to how all this affects the orgional thrust of this discussion,,, the
Verituner... it would seem to me that if one could claim with complete
validity that the use of the Sat with no help from experience ears to set a
tuning on a piano is indecernable from an ear tuning of highest quality,,,
then any improvement on the Sat at all would be moot to begin with. How then
is is possible that so many (so far without expection of those who have spoken
here) can report such an improvement ?

I see too many loose threads hanging, to be convinced. Sigh.. I suppose I will
remain so (for whatever it is worth) until I get the chance to run a blind
test myself and see.

My best to you Jim.
RicB

"Jim Coleman, Sr." wrote:

> Hi Richard:
>
> Actually I did tune unisons with the machine in the Tuneoff with Virgil
> Smith. However, I recommend that ETD users always keep their ears turned
> on. It is faster to tune unisons by ear, If one is using firm blows, I
> think better accuracy can be obtained in the mid-range because we can
> then be listening to high partials during the unison tuning and thereby
> get better accuracy quicker. Keeping ears turned on is also good quality
> control for ETD users in case a slight visual error is made. Likewise,
> the use of an ETD is good quality control for an aural tuning. Many
> former
> aural tuners testify that their tuning has improved since the use of ETDs.
> It is certainly the case with me. I think it is also true that for those
> who have learned to tune both ways, it is fun to tune aurally again. It's
> just more work. I like to use "the best of both worlds."
>
> Incidentally, it is not a good idea to tune Bass unisons with machine
> only. The two strings are seldom well matched, making perfect unisons
> impossible either aurally or electronically. Compromise is achieved
> quicker aurally.
>
> Jim Coleman, Sr.

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no