only aural tunings are good

[Wimblees@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 10/18/02 10:56:14 AM Central Daylight Time, 
pianotuna@accesscomm.ca writes:

> Piano tuning comes down in the final analysis to a matter of "taste".
> Machines or programs have no taste other than what the "creator" puts in
> them, or that which the end user "tweaks" into them. 

While on the one hand I agree with you, on the other hand, because, as Les 
pointed out, we are fallible, even from day to day, if a piano tuner happens 
to have a bad "taste" one day, it is going to be reflected in the way the 
piano sounds. 

One thing that I want to strive for in my tunings is consistency, especially 
in the university setting, where pianos get used by many different people, 
and the same people use many different pianos. I want to make sure all my 
pianos are tuned consistently the same way, day in and day out. That is where 
an ETD is, in my opinion, much more effective. 

When it comes to my concert work, again, I want to be consistent. If I know 
where that piano is, and it's the same every time, then when, and if, a 
concert artist has a complaint about the tuning, I can use my machine to look 
at an individual note to see if it has slipped. If has, it is easy to make a 
change. If it hasn't, then I know I need to make a minor adjustment to the 
artist's wishes. I can then later retune that note back to where I want it. 

Aural tunings are good. And I have tuned some pianos that were tuned aurally 
as much as a year ago, that matched my machine perfectly. But in my opinion, 
machine tunings are better in the long run, for consistency and accuracy. I 
wouldn't give mine up for anything. 

Wim  

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d5/71/cc/3e/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--