---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment I don't think yet another tuneoff will settle anything. The first one= didn't, and the second one didn't either. The "aural only" tuners are= convinced they can do MUCH better than a machine, so if the first two= tuneoffs were inconclusive, there must have been something wrong with the= evaluation process. I think it would be great to have another tuneoff,= just to confirm the previous results. One additional method of evaluation might be to confirm what each tuner is= attempting to do. There is a wide range of acceptable and even great= tunings. Octave stretch has a wide latitude depending on a person's= subjective preferences. Therefore, in addition to the traditional= evaluations used in the past, each tuner should declare what his/her= intentions were, and the tuning be measured as to how close they came to= what they intended to do. Lets say one tuner says he/she is going to tune= 4:2 octaves from F3 to C8, and 6:3 octaves from E3 to A0. When the job is= done, each note can be measured to see if the intentions were carried out.= That way you'd not have a "it sounds pretty good" but a "the goals were= or were not met." That's a little more objective. dave _____________________________ David M. Porritt dporritt@mail.smu.edu Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275 _____________________________ ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c9/fe/ac/a5/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC