David... Since I use an SAT, in addition to checking aurally, I was interested in what you said about only checking A-4 instead of FAC. Could you elaborate on what you meant? Thanks, Gary On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:37 PM, David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net>wrote: > I would have to ask each etd programmer, I’m not sure. Maybe someone who > knows for a fact can contribute here. However, it is my understanding that > the “central octave” is the point from which everything else derives the > offsets going outward. Whether that’s A3 – A4 or F3 – F4 I’m not sure. > When I’m doing a real hybrid tuning, that is calculating a tuning and then > tuning A4, A3, A2 and checking whether or not the machine has calculated an > agreeable stretch, I find that the A4- A3 octave is about as well divided as > I could ever make it, which is my reference octave. F3 will sometimes sit > outside the box if the inharmonicity on that note rises due to the scaling > problems in that section. My own hybrid method, when I use it, is to > basically the same as Jim Coleman’s which is to tune A4, A3, A2 to the > machine and see if I like it. If not, I alter the stretch number until I do > and then tune down through those sections. Similarly when I get below > that. Going up, same idea. Tune A5, A6 to the machine, check the double > octave A4 –A6 and adjust as necessary. With a SAT machine you can use that > method just measuring A4 (rather than the F-A-C). I’ve just started using > the Cybertuner (new toy) and don’t quite have all the subtleties of that > machine figured out yet but you can tweak the stretch very specifically in > each section as well as select various overall stretch numbers to alter the > tuning. > > > > David Love > > www.davidlovepianos.com > > > > *From:* pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] *On > Behalf Of *Alan Eder > *Sent:* Monday, January 31, 2011 2:18 PM > *To:* pianotech at ptg.org > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion > > > > David, > > I think I would put stability a shade above “musical quality” however > that’s defined. If it doesn’t stay put it doesn’t much matter what you > deliver. But that’s really a separate issue. > > > > ... > > > > However if you value an accurate and equal temperament, you won’t aurally > beat a machine’s ability to divide an octave into 12 equal parts, in fact, > rarely will you equal it. > > Thank you for making these two points which are, in my estimation, > undisputable (that is, provided the unisons sound good to begin with :). > One question, though, which stems from my personal ignorance about how > machines do what they do: Do they approach equal temperament as the > equitable division of one octave into 12 equal parts (and, if so, which > octave?), or are they calculating equal temperament over a broader range > (which, on occasion, I have suspected to be the case)? > > Alan Eder > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Love <davidlovepianos at comcast.net> > To: pianotech <pianotech at ptg.org> > Sent: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 7:44 am > Subject: Re: [pianotech] [Pianotek] the big discussion > > I think I would put stability a shade above “musical quality” however > that’s defined. If it doesn’t stay put it doesn’t much matter what you > deliver. But that’s really a separate issue. > > > > The real issue to me boils down to this. I don’t think that it’s a > comparison between the tuning of a **highly skilled** aural tuner and an > end user (let’s put all the other etd benefits aside for the moment). And > It’s not necessarily about the highly skilled aural tuner who has decided to > employ the use of an etd for various reasons. The issue, as I’ve mentioned, > is for the person who is deciding how to approach this task with respect to > their customers. So, if you define “highly skilled”, by the Virgil Smith > standard (and of course there are others who meet this standard as well), > most aural tuners, especially newer ones, are not highly skilled. Many, in > fact—even RPTs, may never be. That isn’t to say they didn’t pass the RPT > test but the skill level varies, if we’re being honest. I would guess the > average pass rate of the RPT exam is about 85% (don’t know for sure) and > there are many associate members who wouldn’t yet pass or haven’t passed at > 80%. Some of these are plying their trade as aural tuners, or being > encouraged to because of what is (erroneously) believed to be a lack of > “musical quality” of an etd tuning. But for arguments sake let’s say that > aural tuners perform on average around 85% in terms of accuracy as measured > by the RPT test. And let’s further assume that this has to do with > temperament/octave setting and that both etd and aural tuners in this > comparison tune stable and solid unisons. Using an etd that same aural > tuner can hit the target spot on as dictated by the etd, if they were using > one. So I’m a customer and my “tuner” comes to me and says, “I can tune > your piano aurally and I’m an RPT but I usually hit the RPT standard at > about 85% pass rate. If I tune it with this etd I can hit the standard at > very near 100% though the tuning will be a computer generated tuning based > on its reading of your piano and not a custom tuning curve as I see fit. > Now I prefer to tune aurally because it gives me more personal satisfaction > and a sense of accomplishment but you’re the customer. What would you like > me to do?” Well, I can tell you what I would say as the customer. > > > > So the question is, what obligation do we have to our customers to deliver > the highest quality tuning we are capable of? We are, after all, charging > them good money to do a professional job. Is our first obligation to > ourselves to work in the way that gives us the most personal satisfaction? > Or is it to work in the way that delivers consistently from the first tuning > of the day to the last one the highest quality product day in and day out, > from the most god awful spinet to the highest quality grand. If the primary > obligation is to ourselves then I say have at it however you want. However, > if our first obligation is to our customers then I think it best to > realistically and honestly assess what it is you can and do deliver and make > the appropriate choice with your customers in mind. If that means an etd > and you wish to continue to hone your aural skills to raise them to a level > that is on par I would be the first to encourage that. But insisting on > tuning aurally when you know you can deliver on average a superior product > in a different way is arguably selfish and irresponsible. > > > > BTW temperament tuning was not the basis of my platform. However if you > value an accurate and equal temperament, you won’t aurally beat a machine’s > ability to divide an octave into 12 equal parts, in fact, rarely will you > equal it. > > > > David Love > > *www.davidlovepianos.com* <http://www.davidlovepianos.com/> > > > > *From:* *pianotech-bounces at ptg.org* <pianotech-bounces at ptg.org> [* > mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org* <pianotech-bounces at ptg.org?>] *On Behalf > Of *Susan Kline > *Sent:* Monday, January 31, 2011 11:56 AM > *To:* *pianotech at ptg.org* <pianotech at ptg.org> > *Subject:* Re: [pianotech] the big discussion > > > > We were talking about the tuning contest, and David Love was pointing out > that many aural tuners in daily work probably didn't reach nearly to > Virgil's standards, as least, that's how I read it. He seemed to be saying > that the real contest in ordinary daily work on low quality pianos with time > limitations was between an AVERAGE RPT aural tuner and an unaltered > out-of-the-box ETD tuning, and that's where the rubber met the road, for > tunings as actually done in the field. Here is what he said: > > <<Something else to consider is that Virgil is a very highly skilled aural > tuner, arguably more highly skilled than most. So with your average pass the > exam at 85% RPT, how would they compare with an out of the box tuning from > an etd--let's assume solid unisons on both. Then you should ask how many > aural tuners actually apply the rigorous aural checks at each tuning > (especially the fourth or fifth one of the day on the little upright that > also needed a 50 cent pitch correction) to insure that they achieve a finely > honed temperament octave and a uniform and balanced stretch. Then, I think, > we have our real comparison where the rubber actually meets the road.>> > > And I was pointing out that the only truly valid criteria for evaluating > actual tunings in the field were the musical results, as experienced by > pianists and listeners. You could (and no doubt many will) argue that a > tuning which tests better on an ETD will be more musical as well. I'm not so > sure this is universally true in all conditions. It just seemed to me that > we shouldn't lose sight of the real aim of our work, whatever the tools > used. He does talk about the need for an exact temperament octave and a > balanced stretch, which surely are desirable, and he suggests we consider > solid unisons a given; so he has mentioned some musical qualities. Just how > exact a temperament needs to be to give a musically excellent result seems a > pretty shaky platform, to me. They can vary a great deal, and people often > like them better than exactly equal. > > On consideration, I'd say that our #1 task is to get as musical a result as > possible, but a close second is stability when the piano is subjected to its > expected use. > > Susan > > On 1/31/2011 11:26 AM, Mr. Mac's wrote: > -- Doudnas PO Box 68 Baileys Harbor, WI 54202 Doudna440 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110131/516df928/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC