[pianotech] aural vs edt

[Israel Stein]

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:55:06 -0500 Conrad Hoffsommer <hoffsoco at luther.edu> 
wrote:
> Matthew Todd wrote:
>> So, what does EDT stand for? (ust kidding)
>>  
>> And doesn't ETD stand for Electronically Transmitted Disease?
>>  
>
> Been staying out of this due to being busy. (Saturday is prime time 
> moonlighting for this college tech)
>
> I've tuned aurally for 35+ years and with Cybertuner for almost 10. I 
> tend to think of myself as a CAT (computer assisted tuner).
Apropos of these remarks by Matthew and Conrad, it might be useful to 
mention that Dr. Albert Sanderson (who invented the entire field of 
generating tunings based on sampled "stretch" factors) always referred 
to the Accutuner (and its predecessor the Sight-o-Tuner) as "Electronic 
Tuning Aides". I believe that the semantic difference is very important. 
The term "ETD" is very unfortunate, in that it does not accurately 
describe the inventors' intention - even though they surely bank a lot 
of money off people who use them not as intended... 

Al  always stressed the need for aural checks and tests when using his 
devices and was a top-notch tuner himself (even though his primary 
profession was engineering and electronics). I heard him say often that 
a top aural tuner could tune a piano better and faster than one 
dependent on a box. I don't know if the "faster" part still applies in 
the case of electronically-assisted top-notch aural tuners, but people 
who cannot hear what they are tuning are not in a position to argue with 
the "better" part - when pronounced by the inventor of the machine they 
may be using as the sole arbiter of their tunings...

Israel Stein