Whoa! there are some pretty strong suppositions here. Using a machine, after 16 years of aural-only studio work, made me a better tuner. How much better is the aural tuning than the ETD? The vastmajority of aural tunings I have seen have been inferior to an ETD's, (at least, on the better pianos). What does theaural tuner do when correcting a 3 cent flat piano? Can we, aurally, make that .7 cent correction as we go? I think not. What ofthe piano that has varying degrees of off pitch? Can the ear compensate on the way through the scale? I think not. And I don't believe that the ear is more consistent than the microchip,either, so repeat tunings, in critical applications, are better served by the machine. How is the aural tuning going to compete with the recorded and stored tuning that has been used and tweaked numerous times in a process of refinement that is unavailable anywhere else? There is no cumulative refinement available with the strictly aural tuning, we have to reinvent the whole thing everytime. However, the machines can feed us back that last tuning we did on that Bramyoungway piano, allowing us to critique it each time we use it, making correctionsuntil there is nothing less than what we consider ideal. Every aural tuning will be a little different, which one is better? There may be some aural tuners that can surpass the ETD on full size pianos, but I haven't seen one in a long time, and submit that they arethe exception to the rule. At the root is how accurately can we measure? Do you want a carpenter that usesa measuring tape or one that eyeballs everything?Hi Everyone,I'm not sure when ETDs came into being,but prior to that, aural tuning was the standard. This is why I think becoming an RPT is good. If one can pass the test aurally, then that tuning should be up there with the EDT tunigns. The question then is, is the RPT standard based upon and EDT standard an aural one or a combination of the two. What this post says to me is this, if I work hard enough maybe just maybe I'll reach that level of tuning ability that only an EDT can offer and that aural tunings are infearior. I think rather than the analogy of eye balling verses using a tape measure should be replaced with using a standard tape measure in comparrison to a talking one. I'm not 100% sure if there is an EDT that the vision impaired or blind can use, but I do believe that our aural skills can compete. Don't forget about the time when Jim Coleman an Virgel Smith compared an aurl tuning to an EDT tuning, both were equally as good. In a nut shell then, it's our job to create as high of a standard of tuning as possible and in all of our work as well. EDT or aural only makes a difference in the method used not the quality of the result gained. If it were, then that would be an unfair sterotype to those of us who would have difficulty in using an EDT. Hopefully you guys could read this. The format is all messed up from copying and pasting the last post. Marshall Marshall Gisondi Piano Technician Marshall's Piano Service pianotune05 at hotmail.com 215-510-9400 www.phillytuner.com Graduate of The School of Piano Technology for the Blind www.pianotuningschool.org Vancouver, WA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110127/e325f583/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC