Well you've extracted various sentences somewhat out of context and managed to comment on them but generally missed the point. I mention the tuning test only because it is the standard by which aural tuning is objectively measured at present. The data suggests that most aural tuners taking the test pass somewhere in the 85% range. There's no reason to believe that the aural tuners out in the real world (some who have not passed the test) on average achieve a much higher and most likely a somewhat lower level than that. I would contend that ETD users, if they can control their tools (a question mark for aural tuners as well), very likely hit the ETD provided targets at a higher rate than aural tuners both calculate and hit theirs since there is much less subjectivity and judgment involved. Since the ETDs are based on algorithms as sampled by what the programmers consider to be the styles used or targeted by the top aural tuners, why would you think that an aural tuning that tends to achieve its goal to a lesser degree would on average provide a more musical tuning? Is it because it's unique and individual? Well I've heard plenty of those that were not what I would consider musical, though perhaps they were unique. Even if the standard etd tuning requires minor tweaks, in my experience (having actually done it both ways), those tweaks tend to be relatively minor on most pianos and left untweaked would not likely lower the "score" significantly were it to be judged by an objective panel. Your suggestions that etd users are more disconnected from the instrument has no basis other than your own speculation based on your one sided experience (and one observation, I suppose). While the connection may take some different form by virtue of the difference in procedures or sequences, there is no real evidence to suggest that one necessarily provides a greater connection than another. More likely some aural tuners are connected and some aren't, simply going through a rote exercise without really paying attention. I know aural tuners (and highly respected ones) who after tuning the temperament simply tune down with octaves and up with octaves, dropping in an occasional fourth or fifth to check. That's less than I check aurally even with the most basic etd tuning. Yet the same undoubtedly holds true of etd users who tune straight up from A0 to C88 and never look back or even around. So neither group can really lay claim to connectedness. It's meaningless conjecture especially as it relates to any one individual. Moreover, connection to the instrument from the process can come in many different ways and at different times. My own style of etd tuning (like many others who tune similarly) has me involved both during and after with various checks. The process is demanding but less than pure aural tuning and is such that even at the end of a long day, when I want to hear how the piano sounds producing real music, I play it. What greater connection is there than that. Each person who decides to do this for a living needs to be honest with themselves about their abilities and the requirements under which they work and choose the method that works best for them--it seems we probably would agree on that. I would say, however, that they should neither be intimidated by those who suggest that tuning with an etd is somehow *less* or hesitate to ply their trade for money (as you strongly suggested) until they achieve what you deem to be a proficient level of aural tuning. I think I've exhausted my input on this subject (I'm sure the natives are thankful). Please, have the last word if you wish. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kline Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:20 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion Strange that you thought it an insult.... (snip)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC