<font color='navy' size='2' face='Comic Sans MS, sans-serif'><font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<font color="crimson">Uhhh... I meant above 80%</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Anything
below 80% was passed at the RPT level but they were not good commercial
tunings on any bodies score card. So maybe PTG should revisit the test.<br>
Dale</font></font></font><br>
<font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">
<br>
<div style="clear:both"><font size="1" color="royalblue"><b><font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, Serif"><font color="black"><font color="mediumblue" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Dale Erwin... RPT</font><br>
</font></font></b></font><font color="darkgreen"><span style="font-style: italic;"><b><font size="1"><font color="black"><font color="blueviolet"><font color="black"> <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Mason & Hamlin</font><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">/Steinway/</font><font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">U.S pianos</font><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><br>
</font></font></font></font><font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">www.Erwinspiano.com</font><br>
<font color="crimson" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">209-577-8397</font><br>
<font color="darkgreen"></font></font></b></span></font><tt><tt><font color="darkgreen"><br>
</font><br>
<font size="2"></font></tt></tt><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Dale Erwin <erwinspiano@aol.com><br>
To: pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org><br>
Sent: Fri, May 11, 2012 7:02 am<br>
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_1_eb26e4b5-deee-463c-af2d-6a966f38b432">
<font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Well <font size="2" color="navy" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">said Professor Love<br>
I was a team that gave tuning test for 8 years before pre-screening was a practice. The guys who passed aurally in all that time the first time around were few. The guys/gals who passed with average scores in the mid 90% were even more rare... 1 or 2. Most applicants failed the first time. What was interesting to me a trained ear tuner was that unless the test was passed in the mid to high 90% percentile I found the quality of the tuning to be something I would not want to pay for. Anything below 80% was passed at the RPT level but they were not good commercial tunings on any bodies score card. So maybe PTG should revisit the test.<br>
Dale<br>
<br>
<br>
<div style="clear:both"><font size="1" color="royalblue"><b><font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, Serif"><font color="black"><font color="mediumblue" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Dale Erwin... RPT</font><br>
</font></font></b></font><font color="darkgreen"><span style="font-style: italic;"><b><font size="1"><font color="black"><font color="blueviolet"><font color="black"> <font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">Mason & Hamlin</font><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">/Steinway/</font><font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">U.S pianos</font><font face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><br>
</font></font></font></font><font color="black" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.Erwinspiano.com" target="_blank">www.Erwinspiano.com</a></font><br>
<font color="crimson" face="Comic Sans MS, sans-serif">209-577-8397</font><br>
<font color="darkgreen"></font></font></b></span></font><tt><tt><font color="darkgreen"><br>
</font><br>
<font size="2"></font></tt></tt><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div style="font-family:arial,helvetica;font-size:10pt;color:black">-----Original Message-----<br>
From: David Love <<a href="mailto:davidlovepianos@comcast.net">davidlovepianos@comcast.net</a>><br>
To: pianotech <<a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>><br>
Sent: Thu, May 10, 2012 10:24 pm<br>
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)<br>
<br>
<div id="AOLMsgPart_0_de1252c3-3a16-4830-808c-5159de09cd63" style="margin: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: #000;background-color: #fff;">
<pre style="font-size: 9pt;"><tt>So much vitriol and so many snide comments. The discussion has diverged into
several different topics but with respect to RPT tuning tests, I won't hesitate
to say that I agree with Duane. And I say this as someone with no political
agenda. I have taken and passed the RPT test without the benefit of an ETD.
The usefulness of aural testing for the temperament and even the octave sections
is limited at this point and proves little. The commonly used ETD's have
surpassed aural tuning in terms of consistency and accuracy within the
temperament octave certainly and arguable in the octave sections as well, at
least in my view. The evidence is pretty clear. Given competent and equal
lever and pin technique, the ETD user will always score 100% in those sections
every time. The aural tuners won't and mostly don't, even those that pass. So
what does the RPT test really tell us? It tells us that if we want consistent
and accurate results as measured by scores on the RPT test, use an ETD. To me,
it's not clear what is being proven by forcing the issue with an aural
temperament and octave test. With unisons it's different not only because ETD
tuners generally tune unisons by ear, but because there are sections of the
piano where measuring unison precision is less reliable with the ETD than with
the ears. Stability measures tuning hammer technique and is a separate but
valid point of testing. Checking stability, btw, is much easier and more
reliable with and ETD. You can't talk yourself into believing what you want to
hear. That we are mostly measured as tuners by accuracy and stability of
unisons is nothing new. If there is a weakness in the applicant's aural skills
with respect to unisons it will be evident and they won't pass. The 21st
century has arrived and we embrace the use of technology as a tool and to
facilitate our sensory limitations all the time. Why should it be any different
with tuning. I say it's time to reconsider the test altogether and whether it's
applicable to the way most people work. Bring it up to date. We aren't talking
about Strobotuners or Peterson machines anymore.
With respect to other comments about other aspects of ETDs. I don't see how
anyone can argue about the speed aspect. ETD's are simply faster. Thorough
aural checks take time. Sometimes they require two hands. Every time your hand
leaves the tuning lever you are taking more time. If you skip the tests and
just speed tune I suppose you can stay up with the ETD users but it reminds me
of that funny Woody Allen line, "I took an Evelyn Wood speed reading course. I
read War and Peace in two hours. It's about Russia".
Speed and stress free tuning without compromising accuracy create more
consistent tunings from the beginning to the end of the day. For example, today
I tuned 6 pianos (more than my usual full day to be sure and not something I do
very often). Every piano had a pitch adjustment ranging from about 5 cents to
14 cents. Using a RCT, I set the machine to Smart Tune which is designed as a
one pass tuning with pitch correction. A0 to C88 took less 40 minutes average
(yes I kept track all day). Since there was a pitch correction involved I reset
the machine to Fine Tune afterwards and then went through the piano again
checking notes against the calculated Fine Tune mode, listening for clean
octaves, rechecking unisons, and see if the final pitch settling was on target.
On some pianos I made a few corrections, not many, but a few. The longest I
spent total on any piano was 55 minutes, the shortest 47 minutes (tuning that
is). I scheduled each appointment 90 minutes apart and stayed on schedule all
day without a problem. The last piano I tuned received the same attention to
detail as the first piano. I tuned for several decades aurally without the
benefit of an ETD. I was very competent and fast with good control. There is
no possible way that tuning by ear would have achieved the same result in the
same amount of time. Nor would I have dared schedule that many tunings in a
day. The ETD allowed me to focus on what I really needed to focus on with
reasonably fresh ears (I'm not a pounder btw), and be confident about the
quality of what I delivered in spite of the heavy workload. My opinion is that
aural tuners tend to underestimate their average time. A pitch correction can
go just fine aurally, but sometimes it doesn't and you end up doing a second
one, or a correction of the correction. It wastes time and energy and
ultimately accuracy or stability of the final product. There's no way that
aural tuning can consistently achieve what Smart Tune mode can (or other pitch
correction modes on other machines) and come anywhere close to the final result.
If you say it can, I think you're not being honest with yourself.
Someone mentioned substitutes. When they send someone to substitute for them
and they are an ETD tuner how do they know that they will be able to accomplish
the tuning, my god, something might happen! Well I've sent aural tuners to sub
for me on pianos I tune regularly and my take is different. I usually end up
returning the piano to what I wanted after it was "personalized". I haven't
found these aural tunings to be any more accurate (usually less). When I send
someone to sub for me, I prefer not only that they use and ETD, but preferably
the same one that I use. Then I can say to them, please use these settings, if
you have to tweak something fine, but when I come back to the piano I won't be
reinventing the wheel and the piano will remain more stable (assuming their
hammer technique is up to it).
So you might say, "but I enjoy tuning aurally, it offers a challenge, a sense of
satisfaction of something accomplished". I say bravo, if that's your main goal.
For me, I run a business, this is my living and supports my family. My
satisfaction comes from efficiency, consistency and timeliness regardless of my
workload, how I happen to feeling or how I judge or misjudge the specific
requirements of a particular piano and are essential to my own sense of
professionalism, satisfaction and a sense of something accomplished. Sure I
enjoy tuning. But I enjoy it more when it's efficient, accurate with the least
stress and achieves consistent results. With respect to customer perceptions,
the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I don't believe they want you
around for two hours if you can achieve the same result in one. They have lives
to lead too.
Honestly, I'm surprised at some who have no problem embracing every new idea
when it comes to soundboard making, scale design, action technologies, blah blah
blah, but when it comes to tuning, ETD's somehow diminish the product. Maybe
during the regulation part of the RPT test we should have people do that without
the benefit of any measuring devices, just by feel. After all, one day you
might forget your ruler!
David Love
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.davidlovepianos.com">www.davidlovepianos.com</a>
-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> [<a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org?">mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Encore Pianos
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:59 PM
To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)
Well, Duane, I can do 3 pitch raises and a fine tuning aurally in just about 2
hours, on the occasional piano that needs that much. About an hour 40 minutes
for 2 pr & ft. If the piano is over 50 cents flat, I will usually schedule a
second visit, because it will wander.
I won't argue that a ETD can calculate a pitch raise and do a more accurate
pitch raise than by our aural means, I have done that with the machine. No
argument there (no need to either). It's very good, but it is not the Holy
Grail. Nothing is.
BUT, I say BS to your "MIGHT make some MINOR tweaking", after your MINOR
(hmmmm.....) checking.
Yes, there are some pianos out there where the pitch drops in like it is going
back into a slot, I've tuned some of those both ways. But there are also plenty
of pianos where the pitch will wander up or down in ways that are not
predictable, and will do so no matter which method is used. I can hear it
happen aurally, and quantify it by the machine if I want to. I make several
passes before fine tuning, and I also know some good ETD tuners who will make 3
passes on some of these beasts because their ear and the machine tells them that
is what it takes to get it right. Sometimes the piano is 10 cents flat and
misbehaves as described, sometimes it is 60 cents flat and acting this way.
My guess is that you are doing one pass on just about everything, and doing
little or no checking. If you don't check it again with the machine, and you
don't know what a piano in good tune sounds like, ignorance is bliss. But, as
Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but Verify." And, ahem, that's why there is an
aural part to the tuning test, to help you keep honest with yourself. I
challenge you to do a single pass on your next few pianos, then write down the
cents deviation for each note in relation to the calculated tuning, and keep
those records. You might actually learn something about your tuning that you
didn't know.
Will Truitt
-----Original Message-----
From: <a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org">pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a> [<a href="mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org?">mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</a>] On Behalf Of
Duaine Hechler
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:03 PM
To: <a href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</a>
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner)
Not to deliberately belabor this point, but answer me this;
99.9% of my tunings involve MAJOR pitch raises. With aural tuning ONLY, how in
the "sam hill" can you do a MAJOR pitch raise in less than 2 hours.
Now let's see - that involves setting the temperament, PRESUMABLY, at the same
time, calculating stretch, tuning each note, tuning the unisons, etc Oh, yeah,
do your "precious" aural tuning checks, but, wait, the piano is constantly
moving because it was so out-of-tune, but some how you are still supposed to do
them, how I will never know. Starting from the middle, tune up and tune down AND
with the piano still moving along the way. So now you some sort of BASE tuning,
so now you have to go back and "tweak" BUT, again, the piano is still moving, so
you have to, maybe, tweak again and again and again, etc. Have I forgotten
anything ?
Now, with an ETD (like, Cybertuner (because that is what I have)), you capture
the "starting" point of the piano with all the A's; IT calculates the proper
pitch of the note where it is supposed to be - factoring in, automajically, the
stretch and you tune from note 1 to note 88. Now, do some MINOR checking, which
you MIGHT need to make some MINOR tweaking. And, now you are DONE.
Stepping back out of your CURRENT life and as a NEW tech coming into the
business, you would pick the ETD route. So did I, like millions of other techs.
So there - "put that in you pipe and smoke it"
Duaine
On 05/10/2012 07:57 AM, David Renaud wrote:
> I did not at all suggest I had an engineering degree, I have a music degree.
>
> I was addressing the comment previously made by someone else
> suggesting that having to take today's tuning Test was like asking to take an
engineering exam with only a slide rule and pencil.
>
> My hope was to point out that the apology is not good because:
>
> 1)Indeed, you actually can use technology for large parts of the tuning exam.
>
> 2) The aural part is primary to demonstrate that a candidate actually does
know some aural test.
> In this interest, The margins of error are very larg, and this part is
> not to produce a concert level tuning at all, but a minimal standard.
> Most of the people I have seen fail this part knew practically no
> aural checks tests whatsoever. Forget executing tests well ,the problem was so
many do not have the information at all. It is a test of demonstrating a minimal
knowledge of aural tests.
>
> 3) the exam process does have a written part before qualifying to take
> the tuning exam. As you suggest should be, is indeed, Questions Regarding
partial, harmonics, and stretch are part of the written exam.
>
> So my point was only that the analogy with the slide rule is not
> valid. And my discussion was intended to point out that a fair
> comparison would be an exam where the candidate would be Expected at some
point in the exam to demonstrate some minimal manual mental calculations and
knowledge without
> referring to the computer/devise. In my opinion the aural component of the
tuning tests does this minimal
> demonstration of aural testing knowledge for it has generous margins
> of error, and anyone with basic knowledge and practice of a 3 or 4
> Interval tests can achieve passing at the 80% level. The problem I
> have seen so often in the exam room with the aural part is mostly lack of
knowledge of any aural tests. It is indeed a demonstration of a minimal
standard, not concert tuning.
>
> I have mentored enough experienced tuners through assimilating
> basic aural skills to have an opinion. ALL of them say it opened up a
> whole new world to them. All of them appreciated and valued the added
> techniques. You do know that none of the examiners get remuneration
> for the Hundreds of hours they have spent training for and being in
> the exam room? To give that much Free time you have to have a spirit
> that really desires to give back. These people want others to succeed, and
have put their time and money behind their words giving thousands of dollars
worth of time because they do care. One CTE I respect very much asked me
once."if we will not preserve Something of the aural tradition, who will? "
> There is value there. There are people that care and give
> there. The aural part Deserves respect.
>
> Cheers
> Dave Renaud
>
>
--
Duaine Hechler
Piano, Player Piano, Pump Organ
Tuning, Servicing& Rebuilding
Reed Organ Society Member
Florissant, MO 63034
(314) 838-5587
<a href="mailto:dahechler@att.net">dahechler@att.net</a>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com">www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com</a>
--
Home& Business user of Linux - 11 years
</tt></pre>
</div>
</div>
</font></font>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_eb26e4b5-deee-463c-af2d-6a966f38b432 -->
</div>
</font></font>