[pianotech] "Repeatable" tuning

[Duaine Hechler]

On 01/27/2011 09:05 PM, PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com wrote:
> The question should be: is anything repeatable? There used to be a
> journal called _The Journal of_ _Irreproducible Results_. It was
> well-thought- of by many good scientific minds, and served the purpose
> of disclosing a lot of hooey and truly laughable experimentation. So
> let's try to design an experiment.
>  
> Piano X is tuned as precisely as possible by ETD at time A.
>  
> Piano Y is tuned as precisely as possible aurally at time A.
>  
> At any other time after time A, the question needs to be raised as to
> whether they're exactly the same piano as tuned either way at time A.
> I think it is arguable that both pianos become "different" due to
> structural shift during ambient and localized condition change. The
> "scaling" doesn't change, but the actual physical condition of the
> string segments changes (soundboards, bridges, bearing, crown,
> terminations, harmonic structure of each string). How measurable is
> it? It's actually measurable down to hundredths of a cent with the
> correctly calibrated tools. We have done this here at CSPT on some
> of the 7 master-tuned pianos that our students use to practice tuning,
> including the piano we use for the PTG tests. We wanted to make sure
> that the "master" on it was lasting adequately. It needed retuning and
> slight re-mastering, and, in my opinion, all test pianos should be
> subject to this kind of oversight. But this then begs a question:
>  
> Piano X was tuned at time A with an ETD, and the numbers recorded. If,
> at time B, you then as precisely as possible re-tune that piano using
> the ETD, you will find variance with the original numbers dialed in at
> the time A tuning. So this begs the question, is the tuning done and
> recorded on the ETD "repeatable"? Within rather large ranges, it is
> close, since the structural shift changes in the piano aren't immense.
> But it won't be the same. It may be as nice, but it won't be the same.
>  
> By the same token, piano Y, aurally tuned at time A, will have
> undergone its own changes. Re-tuning that piano at time B as precisely
> as possible will in fact tune the piano the best it can be tuned at
> time B, but it will be different, measurably, from the first tuning at
> time A. It won't be the same tuning. It can't be. It may be nice, but
> it won't be the same.
>  
> In neither case is the original tuning "repeatable". It is a false
> premise from which to argue. In large, the use of ETD's to "repeat"
> tunings works within rather constrained limits and works well for
> large inventories of the same types of pianos, and as a substitute for
> those who suffer hearing loss in the high treble. To claim as its
> major advantage over aural tuning that fine tunings are repeatable
> from the numbers used in prior tunings is an unsupportable claim. 
>  
> I am really open to counter-arguments on this. As we develop data here
> at CSPT, in our research, it would be worthwhile to make it available.
>  
> Paul

That being said, however, the ETD would be - closer - to the same
because it will have the same basic starting reference point - every -
time. Meaning, the tuning is calculate-able, has the same amount of
stretch in the same places, be more accurate, etc.

Duaine

-- 
Duaine Hechler
Piano, Player Piano, Pump Organ
Tuning, Servicing & Rebuilding
Reed Organ Society Member
Florissant, MO 63034
(314) 838-5587
dahechler at att.net
www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com
--
Home & Business user of Linux - 11 years