Dave Smith writes:
>If anyone would like, we could post the plots of Phil and FAC, but I won't
>clutter the list unless someone is interested.
Greetings,
What would be interesting would be to wait a month, and tune the same
piano again aurally and compare the two plots. When I did this, I found that
the two plottings were not exactly alike, yet they didn't differ from each
other more than either one of them did from the straight FAC. (with the
exception of the high treble, where I naturally tune a little flatter than
the built in stretch of the machine).
This makes me think that strictly aural tuning is not really consistant
enough to compare to a machine, since wetware is not always the same but the
microchips are. Those that suggest that aural is better must demonstrate
that it is the same from event to event, since it is hard to compare a moving
target to a fixed one.
As Phil mentioned, and I agree, the comparison of Coleman's machine to
Virgil's ears should lay to rest any thought that one has the edge one has
over the other. If a room full of experienced technicians cannot, even when
focussed on the matter at hand, distinguish between aural and machine
tunings, I believe the difference has no practical application in the field.
Of course the shortcomings of scale are usually more easily addressed by
ear, but a skillful use of the machine can handle them, too.
I don't think the "best" tunings can be delivered strictly by ear
anymore. The technology has progressed too far for that. I submit the
following reasons for this:
It is one thing to address the FAC/EAR comparison in lab conditions, but
quite another set of values are in place when tuning under combat conditions,
ie, when one has 90 minutes to do a pitch raise and concert tuning while the
roadies are setting up the chairs or an orchestra's worth of music stands.
And for real combat, how many of us have had to ask the housekeeper to wait
with her vacuumm-cleaner until we finish or tried to tune while the kids were
in the next room with their TV cranking? In these compromised situations,
the machine clearly begins to show advantages. When one adds the real world
factors like fatique, sinus congestion, distractions, etc. , having those
lights to guide the work is wonderful.
In recording studios, an original track may get overdubbed a month later,
and discrepancies show up as loss of clarity that producers can usually hear.
Can the aural tuner insure that every note on that piano is within 1 cent of
the last tuning? In this line of work, consistancy is worth a lot, and human
sensation is rarely as consistant as a machine.
Consistancy is also quite important in introducing other temperaments.
Given the "interpretive" nature of non-ET tunings, a higher quality of
feedback from performers is had when you know that they are all responding to
the same temperament each time. In this investigation,(which I have been
pursuing for some time with two separate college faculties), knowing that
they are responding to the same Kirnberger or Young each time they play a
different piece lets me know more accurately what they hear and feel.
And finally, the recording ability of the machines allows the aural tuner
to capture his best effort and replay it the next time he tunes that piano.
Unless the tuner is perfect,(which I certainly am not), I guarantee that the
second use of that captured tuning will exhibit the need for small
refinements, which can then be incorporated into the template. The third use
will perhaps call for more, albeit smaller, tweaking, etc. The final result
will be a template that asks for no more changes to satify the tuner that he
has arrived at personal perfection. It is this cumulative refinement that is
denied the strictly aural tuner, who must start from scratch every time.
Yes, I know that changes in humidity can be shown to alter the
inharmonicity of a piano, but the changes appear less than the normal
variable caused by the human condition, so I still believe that a refined
tuning held in the machine will, on balance, produce the superior results
over the long haul.
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC