Despite my desire to tune aurally, I have to agree with John Ross when he said: When using a machine, you are using the same standard across the piano, so any movement of an area is of no consequence. If doing a pitch raise aurally, when you go to use a note previously tuned, it will have changed, from where you had originally put it. So your reference is now off. With the machine doing a pitch raise, your reference is the same. For pitch raises, I do think ETDs are more accurate. When tuning only aurally, I used to agonize over how much overpull to apply to a treble and high treble that were especially flat of an already flat mid and bass. Overpull too much and you have to lower it later and vice versa. So using at ETD does help in that regard. BUT… The other limitation of ETDs is that piano tone is so complex that the display doesn't always give a clear readout. In exam situations I have seen readings vary by as much as a cent by simply moving the machine from one side of the piano to the other. Additionally the pitch of a single string can rise and fall. A skilled aural tuner is in a better position to make judgments about where the sweet spot is. The vast majority of tuners these days are WAY over dependent on the ETD for tuning work. And once a technician starts to get busy, it becomes very difficult to slow down and pick up the skill later. Some manage to do it, and they are to be commended. But most don't. If we don't practice and promote aural tuning skills, how is the next generation of tuners going to find the inspiration to pick up this important skill which is at the heart of our craft? Well said Ryan. Well said. Daniel Carlton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110127/a91e787c/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC