[pianotech] the big discussion

[Mr. Mac's]

Susan,

I truly want to comprehend the information you present,
   but I am incapable of doing so at this point in time.

What do you mean, "Of course, he knew…"

I don't think anything about what Jim Coleman, Sr.
   might have known or not known. You seem to profess something other.
Do you have evidence to the contrary that can be embraced?

Personally, I accept the contest as presented because of trust and the spirit of the people involved.

Because if you what you suggest is true, then there was no contest,
   that basically, it was rigged from the get-go,
   much so that Sir Smith never new what was he was being set up for.
   whether intentionally or not.

However naive as I might be, I am unwilling to accept your premises
   which lead to no absolute conclusion other than suppositions.

I loved the gold stars you sent my way back when, but what has happened
   between then and now?

Sincerely,

Keith

PS - And yes I can dissect someone's previous experience from their new found understandings.
PS#2 - And yes, I do believe that Albert Sanderson, among others since then, had a vision
             to include persons who would never ever spend the time to accomplish strictly aural tunings.
	    There actually are other dimensions to what will be, than what currently are.
            I'd personally would quit self-employment if I ever had to go back to pen and paper bookkeeping
            that requires Journal entries and posting to a ledger and all the rest. Those days are gone.
	    

On Jan 31, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Susan Kline wrote:

> The question being discussed was whether Jim Coleman's expertise as an aural
> tuner played any role in the contest. Of course he knew the particular pianos
> being used, and of course he had experience using his SAT on that particular
> piano, and knew that it was a viable task which the SAT would do well. If the
> model of piano chosen was one which he knew his SAT would not tune very well,
> and he'd accepted that and used the pure machine function without alteration
> for the contest, he'd have sold his machine short.
> 
> You can't dissect someone's "ETD tuner" from the aural tuning background, it's all
> one person. It's not "cheating" to know from long experience that the SAT
> will work fine for a contest, without tweaking. So of course he was a "hybrid"
> tuner for the contest, and it's no reflection on his ethics at all. To set
> up the contest using a "pure" ETD tuner who had never successfully tuned
> a piano without an ETD would be a rigged contest favoring the aural side.
> 
> Perhaps other people can answer this better than me, but I find it hard to
> believe that the people who originally invented ETDs, and then improved them,
> intended for them to be used by people unable to tune a piano on their own.
> Surely they were intended all along for "hybrid" tuners to use?
> 
> Susan
> 
> 
> On 1/31/2011 11:15 AM, Mr. Mac's wrote:
>> On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:59 PM, Susan Kline wrote:
>> 
>>> The contest was between two completely honorable people, of course.
>>> 
>>> However, do you think he would have accepted the contest if he had known
>>> ahead of time that his SAT wouldn't be able to generate an excellent tuning on
>>> the piano in question? It's not dishonest for him to know ahead of time
>>> that the contest was between Virgil at his best and the SAT at its best.
>>> They obviously didn't want to set up the test using matching spinets.
>> Susan,
>> 
>> I don't think anything about either of these two persons intentions
>>    or what they might have known about beforehand.
>> 
>> As I recall, actually being there in person, the two pianos were
>>    Kawai grands of about 6' or less.
>> 
>> And if I am not mistaken, Kawai grands, generally speaking,
>>    have one of the best scale designs in the industry.
>> That is why, according to a passing comment made by Jim Harvey, RPT,
>>    in a class I attended once upon a time, that the name, K. Kawai, is used on the grands,
>>    but only Kawai is used on the verticals. You or others can deduce what you want.
>> 
>> Of course, I am more than willing to admit that I am no expert on these matters.
>> 
>> In fact, I am even willing to admit that I am not an expert in anything.
>> 
>> Honorable or not, these two dudes are beyond reproach.
>> 
>> How is it customarily said?
>> 
>> In my opinion,
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>