[pianotech] aural vs edt

[J Patrick Draine]

As I remember (as a next-town-over neighbor and fellow chapter member for 30
years), the A0 to C8 sequence was developed as a result of his research into
developing the most efficient pitch raise procedure (not to obliterate aural
verification). As a "real" scientist, he did a lot of testing as he
developed his 25% pitch raise overshoot (since refined by others), and often
used chapter members and NBSS students as his "test subjects," while he
developed the Hale SOT and then the several generations of the SAT.Patrick
Draine

On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Porritt, David <dporritt at mail.smu.edu>wrote:

> Israel:
>
> If Dr. Sanderson considered the Accutuner as an Electronic Tuning Aid I'm
> curious as to why he promoted the idea of starting at A0 and working up.
>  Clearly there's no way to do any interval checks in the bass this way as
> there are no "tuned" notes above them to use as checks.
>
> When I got my first ETD I did this for a very short time before I realized
> that limitation.  Now I tune in a pattern resembling aural tuning so I can
> make those checks.  The idea of A0 & up has always mystified me (well,
> except for a pitch raise where you don't need checks).
>
> dp
>
>
> David M. Porritt, RPT
> dporritt at smu.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On
> Behalf Of Israel Stein
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 12:47 PM
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> Subject: [pianotech] aural vs edt
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090405/f8c3d44f/attachment.html>