ears vs. eyes..kinda long-winded

[Isaac OLEG]

Hello,

I suspect that when you are used to tune with an ETD, the particular
tone of this EDT you have in your ear, and you can tune aurally more
or less the same direction.

Aurally will sound better always, as if you tune with an EDT but
checking aurally as you go, you will make the same kind of tweak that
Phil did when tuning purely aurally.

The problem I had with the ETD was that they tend to make me lazy
about checking, and a few notes off in a nice tuning are more noticed.

There is an important thing I've learned with the use of these tools :
Always shut them down before making the "real" tuning (I mean before
tuning unisons and checking aurally the intervals then.

Beside, having a display is a must to learn very firm pin setting,
while some may say that their pin setting method is so much the same
moment that the hearing moment and I will understand that.

I am very sure that the modern ETD are the future of the tuning world,
but let's keep some magic in the job, it is very important too.

Regards

Isaac OLEG



.*.


> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
> [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la
> part de Dave Smith
> Envoyé : samedi 19 octobre 2002 15:55
> À : Phil Bondi; Pianotech
> Objet : Re: ears vs. eyes..kinda long-winded
>
>
> Phil, I resemble the Prophead remark.
>
> Seriously, I was surprised how close the aural tuning was to the FAC
> calculation, except for the lowest bass and the highest
> treble.  Between C2
> and A7, the aural tuning is just lightly scattered around the FAC
> calculation.  This could be due to 1) the small but
> significant differences
> that good aural tuning makes over the FAC calculation, or
> 2) small random
> variation of the aural tuning around the FAC calculation
> curve, or 3) the
> small random variation that ANY actual tuning has around the the FAC
> calculated curve....  I will retune using the SAT III and
> remeasure to see
> how my FAC tuning actually matches the calculated curve.  I
> suppose this has
> been done and published many years ago, but I can/t find any data.
>
> I did, however, really lke the tuning Phil made aurally.  It sounded
> different, and perhaps more alive.  Hard to compare when
> you can't listen to
> them side by side, though.  I guess I need another C2.
>
> In the bass, Phil's tuning was not stretched quite as much
> as the FAC.  In
> the highest treble, it was stretched more.
>
> This small experiment has urged me on in my quest to learn
> to tune aurally.
> Although I am an engineer and thus a PROPHEAD apparently, I
> also have ears,
> and I believe that my tuning will benefit from using both
> the machine and
> the ears.
>
> If anyone would like, we could post the plots of Phil and
> FAC, but I won't
> clutter the list unless someone is interested.  Or we could
> send privately.
>
> Great to have this forum, especially for us grasshoppers.
>
> Dave Smith
> Pine Island FL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Bondi" <tito@philbondi.com>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:54 AM
> Subject: ears vs. eyes..kinda long-winded
>
> >
> > 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'.
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>