Machines, again, (was Accu-Tuner ad)

[Allan Gilreath]

List,

I think Ed is right on track here.  So often when I read these disputes
it seems that the assumption is either all or nothing on either side;
either totally aural or totally machine.  What's so wrong with using
both?  I love using a nicely sharpened and tuned Lie-Nielsen hand plane
but my Ridgid power thickness planer is certainly useful.  Even after
typing this, I re-read and see it isn't the best comparison.  

Expanding my art is vital to me but I also appreciate the advancements
of technology.  For me they work in concert.  If we keep our minds open,
keep training ourselves and work together rather than against each
other, we stand a much better chance of accomplishing what we desire.  

Allan
Allan L. Gilreath, RPT

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of A440A@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 10:42 AM
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: Machines, again, (was Accu-Tuner ad)

Richard writes: 
<< This ETD / Ear thing always seems to bring out the emotional side of
our
reasoning on either side of the fence.  Its easy to loose track of the
probably fact that ETD's are hear to stay... and will continue to get
better and better until at some point ear tuning will just become
downright superfluous. We may loose some of the human creative aspects
of
our musical experiences... but the writing seems quite apparent and in
large text on the proverbial wall. >>

 That writing has been on the wall for a long time.  Arthur Fiedler went
on 
record as being well impressed with the results of using a SOT
(Sight-0-Tuner) 
in the mid 1970's.  I have presented a straight off the machine FAC
tuning to 
some of the most acute ears on the planet and the tuning was deemed 
"excellent".   
   The differences between my most careful aural tuning and the FAC for
a 
Steinway D are so neglible that it is a moot point to even debate them
with any 
but other tuners.  The customer's requirements are covered long before.
As I 
have said, poor scales can throw most machines off,  in those cases the
ears 
have it beat.  Unisons, also, require the subjective judgement to be
rendered 
evenly from note to note.  The machines ability to measure stretch is
also a 
boon,  no longer are customers limited to the tuner's mood, but can
specify 
exactly what they want with some chance of getting it.  (ever seen one
of George 
Winston's contracts???).  Repeatability is unmatched, as well as putting
two 
pianos together.    
  HOwever,  without the machines, there would be virtually no growing 
movement of well-temperament usage, and pitch raises would still be
either omitted or 
costly in many cases.  I also think that the prevalence of machines has
had a 
great effect on the quality of tuning the general public sees.  I know
of 
several tuners that cannot tune without the machine, yet they are able
to deliver 
high quality work, for pay.  This is bread on the table, any way you
slice 
it.  
  Am I threatened by machines making tuning so easily available?  No.  I
have 
many other things to sell in the way of piano maintenance.   Trusting
solely 
in the technology is a risky, but there is no way a superior result can
be had 
with using ears alone as opposed to using educated ears assisted by 
technology.  I was fortunate in having some of the best training
available, and 16 
years of aurally taking care of very demanding venues, but after all
that, getting 
a SAT made me an even better tuner.  
Regards, 
 
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
 <A
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>
_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives