Hi floks. This debate will go on for as long as there are pianos to tune, and choices to be made on whether or not to tune aurally or visually. Personally, I won't get in the middle of it. I don't find it necessary to defend either one. I'm ambidextrious when it comes to Piano Tuning. I find my own preferences 'interesting' and worth sharing if you're willing to spend a minute or 2 to read.... In Orlando, at the Great Tune-Off between the esteemed Jim Coleman and equally esteemed Virgil Smith, I found myself, as a raw recruit new to the biz, rooting for the time-honored aural tuning. At that point, I had not learned yet to tune aurally to my satisfaction..yet, with all that Jim Coleman had done for me up to that point, I found myself rooting for Virgil, someone who I only knew as a legend in the field. When the results came back as essentially a 'draw', it opened my eyes even further to 'there is no better way' with regards to piano tuning. If a room full of full-timers were not able to pick one piano as being that much better than another, then far be it from me to get into a debate whether one method is better than another. When I finally learned to tune aurally to my satisfaction, the SAT gathered dust for awhile. Also, let me point out that the SAT is directly responsible for my aural abilities, along with some great coaching from the "Atlanta Connection". I tuned every piano in sight for awhile aurally, 9'ers and Spinets alike. There was no going back to the SAT...thought about selling it... Hold On Grasshopper..... I also learned that aural fatigue is as real as physical fatigue, and the ability to dial in FAC's when one is whipped is just as much an art as is aural tuning. ..then comes the debate of using your ears along with your eyes... Well, personally, I find myself making minute changes at the Bass/Tenor break in some pianos, not all, when using the SAT. Other than that, I let the machine do the work of telling me when it's in tune..I let my hammer technique tell me when the sting is stable. Where is this all going? Nowhere, really. It just that for every better mouse trap invented, there will always be those who don't feel the mouse trap is necessary. Neither one is incorrect and neither one is fully correct. Recently, I tuned a C2 for someone I am apprenticing. He has been using the SATlll on it, learning technique, etc. He was curious as to how his piano would sound tuned aurally....so I did. The Result: Without being able to put a finger on it, it sounded 'different'. To me, it sounded a bit more alive than it did before. Being the prop head that he is, he measured my aural tuning against the SATlll setting he had been using. With the exception of the Bass, the numbers were very close(whew!!), but different enough to both of our ears to sound 'different'. Would the Verituner or the RCT give different numbers? Being unfamiliar with both machines, I can not give an honest answer. Would it matter THAT much? I have my doubts. The point in all this is that there is more than one way to catch the mouse, and as long as the mouse is caught carefully and without incident elsewhere, does it matter? Well, there was a time when auto mechanics could tell a car's performance from it's sound, not from its numbers. I trust those can can do both. They've had the training from both sides of the fence. As have I. Setting your sights on 'there is only one way' might be short-changing yourself, and more importantly, the piano. Pianos have a habit of not lying about what it likes, and doesn't like. Some people spend a lifetime trying to figure that out..frankly, most of us will. I like to think that those that can tune both ways are just slightly ahead of those who chose to use one method...but only slightly, because there is no best way. Just as Virgil or Jim. Respectfully, -Phil Bondi (Fl.) tito@philbondi.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC