<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>etd's and ears</TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1250"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3020" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You get no arguement from me. I'm with you 100% on all counts.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Terry Farrell</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Luvin' my Verituner</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now being in hearing aids, I think more and more about the values of ETD's yet hear the ramblings about all their limitations, and the power of the aural tuner.  What puzzles me is this.  Two tune-offs at two national conventions with Virgil Smith and Jim Coleman proved pretty well that "a good tuner is a good tuner whether he uses an ETD or tunes aurally".  I think it was Mr. Coleman who said, "The closer in value of the piano to $100,000, the better the machine tuning."  Well my strict reliance on an ETD has been adequate for two symphony orchestras, Vienna Boy's choir, numerous other concert venues and several recordings,  my aural tuning considered , as well, "completely fine" in another of the major halls in this city when I had to wing it because of a time crunch.   It has long seemed to me as I have followed aural tuner after aural tuner with really messy top and bottom octaves that the ETD wins hands down over the "average aural tuner".  Yet there is still an aura of the ETD tuner as somehow inferior.   Every tuning is a compromise at many points along the way, and my experience has indicated that aural tuners are very often entirely too proud of their product, thei " compromises"  being far far from reasonable or accurate.   As the tuning public grows more and more grey, hearing issues are going to become more serious, and  I can pretty much tell on first pass if the tuner before has been aural, and generally know if he or she is suffering from some kind of hearing limitation..   </FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>I can't be considered a total schlock as I passed my tuning test above CTE requirements in all but one area strictly aurally. So, I've paid my dues. But I don't tune aurally unless I can't avoid it these days, and private clients, academicians, concert and recording artists have all complimented my pretty much strict machine tunings (yes I do listen carefully afterwards as I check things for smoothness without the program running).  On junk, where no tuner can hear amidst the false beats, I again think the machine wins, because it gives consistency and at least a reasonable target at notes which otherwise often vary as much as 50-cents or more from what aural tuners have done.  I will never throw away my aural skills, but more and more I trust my ETD and my intuitions as I manipulate the program to present what I think will be a reasonable tuning for a particular instrument.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Flame suit at the ready, I think more and more the standard for "accurate" is going to become the standard created by electronic devices.  After all I've been part of testing teams, and have seen how the examiners rely on the machine to make an accurate master tuning.  So, why not learn to manipulate the electronic programs through experience and then trust with wise use they will perform at or above the average tuner, and compete very well with the "good" tuners………  Even Avery Todd, I suspect, made great use of his SAT when he tuned for Olga Kern last week, and it was a very solid tuning, though she did do some damage with her massive strength.   So, I'm all for stirring the pot on this one and seeing what kind of "soup" comes out.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>les bartlett</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>