[pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion

[John Ross]

I did the PTG tuning exam a few years ago, using I think it was a SATl.
I scored I think it was an average of 95.7, unisons being the part that brought my score down.
This is the full exam with the pin setting, unisons etc. With an ETD, you are allowed 1 hour, and 1 1/2 hour for an aural examinee.
When I tried the aural portion, I failed. They told me my 4ths and 5ths were too pure.
Now if I were a customer wanting a tuning, would I choose an ETD tuner with a 95.7% average for the exam, or an aural person, who for arguments sake passed with an 80%.
Just throwing this out, and I know it is late in the thread.
John Ross
Windsor, Nova Scotia

> Yes, as I read back through the thread I realize things have gotten somewhat
> convoluted.  If I were to distill it down to a central point I would say
> this.  The ugly little truth is that most aural tuners don’t tune as
> accurately as they think they do.  I think the exam points that out.  That’s
> not to say that they don’t produce acceptable, even high quality musical
> results.  There is evidently some leeway in this thing that we do.  But to
> suggest that using a device which produces on average a more accurate result
> also produces a less musical result doesn’t really make much sense, unless
> you would argue that a less accurate aural tuning is still more musical than
> a more accurate etd tuning.  It would seem that there’s some resistance
> among some to accept the state of the art technology.  Personal choices
> about how to approach this task or commitments to continue to develop aural
> skills for whatever reason are a different matter.  
> 
> OK, now I'm done.  
> 
> David Love
> www.davidlovepianos.com
> 
> From: William Monroe [mailto:bill at a440piano.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 6:53 AM
> To: davidlovepianos at comcast.net; pianotech at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion
> 
> Point taken, David.  I didn't mean to be overly specific to you.  More, it's
> been suggested in this thread a few times by a few people, and I thought it
> worth revisiting.
> 
> WRM
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110201/8b4942af/attachment.htm>