ears vs. eyes..not long-winded

[Isaac OLEG]

Hey, that's only a matter of feeling, coupled with accuracy and a
first class tone building !

Never it can be measurable (how could it be ?).

When you begin to tune for tone and not for pitch life is easier.


Regards.

Isaac OLEG




> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
> [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]De la
> part de Richard Moody
> Envoyé : jeudi 24 octobre 2002 07:52
> À : Pianotech
> Objet : Re: ears vs. eyes..kinda long-winded
>
>
> "I  think I can tune a piano so that it sounds measurably better
> than any
> straight machine tuning---even Jim Coleman's"
>
> I  too have never tuned a whole piano with an ETD for pay.   I do
> out of curiosity  experiment with them when ever I get the chance
> and put myself against them if asked.   However I prefer setting
> A440 with a particular "pocket tuner", but also get kicks setting
> A4  from the beats of C4 gotten from a standard C fork and
> "freezing" the machine reading of A4.
>      Lucky try I guess, but then who worries about A being closer
> than half a beat per second at concert time?  I have had musicians
> tell me that pianos can go off one cycle per second from a cold
> house to intermission.  How do they know?.... they use pocket
> tuners.  So, yes,  a $200 expense to acquire the musicians pitch
> source is no biggie considering the business I was getting from
> those situations.
>    So if that eliminates me from the "pure aural tuner" category,
> sorry but it was a "business first" consideration. If though I can
> demonstrate nailing A440 from a fork to redeem myself then I would
> gladly do so.
>
> To reply to David Andersen below, I don't know that I could
> demonstrate an aural tuning "measurably better" than Jim Coleman's
> machine tuning.  Having spent 3 or 4 afternoons at Jim's home with
> his SAT and SnS L, I would like to see someone "beat" one of Jim's
> machine tunings on that L.
>     Now the machine tuning might be a recording onto the SAT of
> Jim's aural tuning assisted by that SAT.  But to Dave Andersen if
> you want to visit Jim to prove your point, that you can
> demonstrate a better tuning on his piano than Jim can with his
> machine, I want to be there. Because if you do you will be the
> star (with a fat contract) in a video called, "Aural tuner beats
> SAT III"
> ---ric (the "i" stands for the "i" in 'let the excuses begin')
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Andersen <bigda@gte.net>
> To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>; <oleg-i@wanadoo.fr>
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:33 PM
> Subject: RE: ears vs. eyes..kinda long-winded
>
>
> > >Shouldn't there be somewhere a "living museum" tuner, who
> > >never used the ETD, and therefore never was changed by
> > >its particular biases and requirements?
> > >
> > >And I volunteer!
> > >
> > >Susan
> >
> > I volunteer as well, and I guess it's time to step up to the
> plate:  I
> > think I can tune a piano so that it sounds measurably better
> than any
> > straight machine tuning---even Jim Coleman's, or Rich
> Davenport's, or
> > anyone else.  I'd love to have a chance to prove that to some of
> you
> > lovely folks.
> > {David}
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>