[pianotech] SAT IV extended

[paul bruesch]

I am aware of the volumes that have been written about aural vs machine
tuning, even in the few years I've been on the list. I was not suggesting
that we haven't discussed that, rather that specifically the FAC sampling
(and I imagine any machine's sampling) leaves something to be desired. I am
grateful to now have a much better insight into WHY and HOW that happens,
and how to learn what to do about it. Thank you for that!

I know that many experienced tuners these days use an ETD to aid with
tuning, but one of my points is that nearly everyone who uses an ETD
emphasizes that it's just an aid, as you did to your two customers that day.
The other (related) point is that almost any button monkey can push some
buttons and turn out an OK tuning a lot of the time.

I would say that your aural-demanding customer got what s/he asked for. The
machine-demanding customer probably is of the misunderstanding that
computers can do anything perfectly.  Certainly, there is no such thing as a
perfect tuning, but I'd bet that your strictly-aural tuning is better than
any strictly-machine (deaf tuner) tuning.

Apologies to Mr Grebe... your thread has continued to be hijacked by a
generic discussion of the various SAT's FAC measurement and resulting
calculations.

Paul Bruesch
Stillwater, MN

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote:

>  It’s been written about a fair amount in an ongoing discussion about the
> plusses and minuses of aural versus electronic tuning.  If you search the
> archives you’ll find more than you’ll ever care to read.  I don’t really
> have an opinion on the RPT exam  because although the  ETD doesn’t create a
> “perfect” tuning neither does an aural tuning.  The issue really hit home a
> few months ago when I got two calls on the same day from different customers
> one telling me that they would only hire me if I tuned aurally and the other
> only if I tuned electronically.  I skirted the issue by explaining that I
> use both methods in conjunction with each other and ended up writing about
> it on my website blog—yet unfinished.  I did get hired by both, btw.  One
> can make the argument both ways, the ETD can correct mistakes in an aural
> tuning just as much as aural methods can find problems with calculated
> tuning curves.   There is one thing to note, however, the trade does have
> blind tuners, I don’t think there are any deaf ones.
>
>
>
> David Love
>
> www.davidlovepianos.com
>
>
>
> *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On
> Behalf Of *paul bruesch
> *Sent:* Monday, December 28, 2009 5:14 PM
>
> *To:* pianotech at ptg.org
> *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] SAT IV extended
>
>
>
> David et al,
>
>
> I've been following this thread with a great deal of interest. As a SAT3
> user since beginning to learn this trade about six years ago, I've been a
> bit mystified by how FAC can accurately determine a tuning. And since my
> aural skills have gotten less bad, and I've begun to notice that it's NOT
> creating a perfect tuning, I have been overruling what the SAT3 tells me to
> do.
>
> I believe this is the first discussion that I recall seeing on this topic,
> and in my mind it further cements the notion that a good tuner absolutely
> MUST know what the machine is doing for him/her. It's a lot like learning to
> do arithmetic on paper before resorting to using a calculator... but unlike
> using a calculator, the ETD continues to require brainpower beyond knowing
> which button to push.
>
> Could I see a show of hands... who still thinks we should have an ETD-only
> RPT exam? Anyone who is inclined to raise his hand should first go back and
> read -- and understand!! -- the relevant posts on this thread.
>
> Paul Bruesch
> Stillwater, MN
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20091228/d5b9e564/attachment.htm>