It’s All Math - I’d been pondering this a while, and then Chuck wrote that wonderful email about the Math. I waited to see if it would take. Almost. I think we are having a right-brain / left-brain argument where most of us are saying the same thing but we can’t tell because the other side isn’t using our language. The artsy side of the brain believes we get the tuning intuitively, from within our hearts. The fact seeking side of the brain believes if I can measure it, I can calculate it. Everything we do in listening while tuning is Math. Whether we use ears or computers, it’s all Math. The one wire beats at 440 Hz, and the other at 440.5 Hz. We hear a half beat per second. Congratulations! You just did Math with your ears! I tuned strictly “from a fork” (I say this instead of “by ear,” because I still use my ears) for seventeen years. “How can you do that?” people would ask. “It’s easy if you know what to listen for,” I would explain; “ The piano tells you where it wants to go.” I can’t argue with the piano in front of me, I have to make it agree with itself. Granted, we are not listening to one frequency. We are comparing several at a time, sorting out which are the most important, which must be ignored, and which is related to whom. It’s still Math. And the human brain is still amazing. This Math isn’t new, piano designers have known and used the Math for a very long time. It seems to change by the time the actual piano gets to us, but they did pay attention to the Math. Some were brilliant, some were morons, some were sloppy but they all did the Math. So, the problem for the calculating side of the brain is: What to measure? What to compare it to? If I do the Math with my ears, how do I get the computer to measure and compare (listen) to the same thing? How many measurements does it take? How precise does it have to be? The answer is: Enough so no one can hear the difference. When I first tried a computer with RCT, I tuned several pianos I cared for regularly. What my ear wanted and what the computer wanted were very, very close. Reassuring in both directions. A few years later I did a concert tuning on a piano Ryan Sowers had tuned less than two weeks before. One third of the notes were spot on, the rest were very close. It should be that way. “I watched them tune from A-0 to C-8 and they never listened to any intervals.” If they are using an intelligent program, it sampled enough notes from the piano to calculate all of those intervals. RCT provides a graph that shows what those intervals will sound like. With RCT on a decent piano, I get smooth 10th runs, 17ths and even minor 21st runs that would have been astounding in my early days. At the core, there are tuners who always strive for quality and improvement. Computers can provide them with another view of the data, another bit of information. Others turn out lousy tunings and don’t care. Computers can’t really help them. I have an apprentice who is coming along. I have barely shown him anything on the computer. Here’s your fork and temperament strips. Get a hold of the basic premise of our craft, your ears are the most valuable thing you can use. After he passes the tuning test, I’ll see what his interests are. Not before. The Future is Coming - Before the arguments about machine tunings, there were arguments about tuning using thirds and sixths. A long, long time ago. “It can’t be musical, you guys are just tuning by the numbers!” they cried. Turn the page, things have changed and now that is the standard. We are now in the middle of such a sea-change. Computers and their capabilities are going to improve and become more ubiquitous. I posit, sometime in the future, the strictly aural tuner will become rare. It is not a judgment nor a hope, just a recognition of trends. David Stocker, RPT Tumwater, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110207/909e4f7f/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC