I thought we just finished beating this horse. Naaaayyy! it's still alive! <G> <br><br>Ric B's wrote some really good stuff. We are definitely talking about levels beyond the basics of tuning.<br><br>Press PLAY:
<br><br>"Personally, I feel more in control of things when I'm tuning aurally. (Mainly because it makes me listen to all of the piano, and not mainly at the unison level. Say, if there's an error with the dbl octave that can be traced back to the temperament with a fifth that narrowed as you tuned upward. Then you can correct it and move on.) With an ETD, I get so incredibly lazy it's not funny...and my brain/ears starts losing pitch sensitivity.
<br><br>But, today's ETDs will definitely give a more than acceptable tuning. So, nearly everyone will be happy."<br><br>STOP, REWIND...OK, I'm ready for the next go-round when it comes up. <g><br><br>I do, however, believe that all piano tuners should make every effort improve their listening skills. It's a great feeling to be able to ride the wave of an octave and say, "Ahh...that's good" and to know that you know what you're talking about
<br><br>JF<br> <div><span class="gmail_quote"><br><br>On 2/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Farrell</b> <<a href="mailto:mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com">mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div 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><div><span class="e" id="q_110c052c14f7797a_1">
<blockquote dir="ltr" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 0px;">
<div style="font-family: arial; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">----- 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></span></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>