<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> Those of you who are apt to jump all over me for my occasional rants please read my last sentence first... hehe A440A@AOL.COM wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Rick writes: <<We know that a machine so far, is not demostrably better than a good aural tuner.       I can't agree with this,  It has been demonstrated that a machine is not demonstrably better than a "great" aural tuner(Virgil/Coleman comparisons of 1999?).  I don't know if a "good" one is going to be competitive.</blockquote> I in turn would have to counter disagree. To begin with, not much has been demonstrated at all aside from the evaluation criteria's' lack of ability to discern any significant difference between fine ear and well executed machine tunings. But that says more about the evaluation process then anything else. Secondly it goes pretty much without saying  that the "machine" (read SAT, Tunelab, and RCT as commonly used)  is capable of only one type of tuning... one based on a calculated curve of one particular partial. The ear on the other hand is capable of much more, and in that sense it is and will remain a better tool. That in no way however takes away from the fact that what the machine does do... it does very very well indeed. Nor does it in any way take away from the value of the machine as such. Thirdly this whole operating concept of "good" and "great" tunings is way to vague to begin with. What about a little actual preciseness for a change.  For one thing I fail to see that it has ever been demonstrated that a CC machine can consistently set contiguous thirds better or worse then a good ear. In fact over the range of the piano where it is useful to speak of contiguous thirds, I would think the machine was far to dependent on the scaling of the instrument conforming to the afore mentioned and criticized view of the "perfect piano". What is a "good" or a "great" tuning is many things to many people. In the sense we are in fact using as the primary evaluation criteria the terms "good" or "great" are to my mind of thinking meaningless. Its like saying the EBVT is inherently better then Young Well, or better then ET. A more valid evaluation process would necessitate a precise definition of the tuning to begin with, and measure how well the actual result conforms to that definition. Otherwise I suppose you could put a good tuner with a Korg on stage and end up with just as "good" a tuning as anyone else... which would prove really nothing. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>What we KNOW is that the quality of the tuning done by the machine is determined by the quality of the piano. As Al Sanderson once said, "If you have a perfect piano, the machine will give you a perfect tuning".</blockquote> That is true only if the definition of a perfect piano is one that has no para-inharmonicity. And I am far from certain that I am in agreement with that presumption. In fact I wonder greatly at the whole concept of the "perfect piano". In any case when we start redefining what is a good piano based on its ability to conform to one particular tuning standard.... I think we are in trouble. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>       Audiences are poor judges of tuning beyond unisons.  It would be more instructive to have a group of pianists play the same pieces on both tunings and select the one that felt most "in tune" for them, (but don't try this with ET and a Coleman 11, the latter wins every time!)  </blockquote> Well.. THAT should tell us all something right away. Neither the audience or the pianist approach is going to leave the subjective arena. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>If that were the case, good tuners would have switched to machines because good tuners would never pass up an opportunity to improve.>>   Umm, yes, That is the case,  and that is why many of us formerly aural-only tuners wonder why more of the aural-only tuners don't avail themselves of the new technology.</blockquote> Er... I and many others like me who have been through the ETD thing are left wondering why tuners continue to rely so heavily on them. I mean they are great learning tools, and can help every one of us become better tuners...and that means better ear tuners... think about it. The point is things shouldn't  stop there. What, we should all buy a machine with inherent limitations, exploit it for what it can give us and stop up our learning curve there ???  Put the darn things down. Use them when you have too or want to check out something relative to your ears. But to overrate these things... to let THEM start defining what is or is not a good piano scaling... nahhhhh... Ok...  this was your typical rant... Up on a soapbox... seriously enough meant but tongue is firmly in check and a humorous smile in my tummy... Flame suit on...IHMO... etc etc. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about if you get my meaning. All in fun. I dont know how more clearly I can make that. :)JJ -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>  </html>