<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>CTE's administer the exams as prescribed by the collective wisdom of PTG's Council, and as individuals, CTE's are under no obligation to defend the exam, nor, as individuals, are any of them qualified to definitively explain the collective wisdom of Council.</div><div><br></div><div>The "collective wisdom" is simply the result of the political process. Some respect that collective wisdom more than others; I tend to give great respect to the results of the political process; it lets us make decisions on matters about which we disagree.</div><div><br></div><div>As to the question at hand, I have been a CTE, and make the following personal observations; they are neither intended to defend nor challenge the current exam.</div><div><br></div><div>I would point out that the statement that "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: small; ">aural tuning tends to deliver less consistent </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial; font-size: small; ">results in the temperament and octave sections than electronic tuning" </span>is false in my experience, especially among the finest tuners. (What one can indeed say is that beginning and intermediate tuners do better with ETD's.) Tuners who are familiar with both aural and electronic tuning can deliver superior results, at least, that is my experience; hybrid aural/electronic tunings can be better than aural tunings, better than electronic tunings.</div><div><br></div><div>Pianos are tuned for the benefit of music, an aural art. Regardless of the methods used to accomplish a finely tuned piano, the results are, in the end, expected to be _aurally_ pleasing. Perhaps the current exam reflects that simple fact.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kent</div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On May 12, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Bill Fritz wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><font color="black" size="2" face="arial"> <div>I for one am interested in CTEs' responses to this question of David Love's (and the request by Will Truitt).</div> <div> </div> <div>Thank you in advance...   Bill Fritz, St Louis</div> <div> </div> <div><snip> </div> <div>As for the answer to your final question, I think that is best left to those  <br> out there who have been CTE's who hopefully are reading this correspondence.  <br> They could certainly give you a far more intelligent answer than I could <br> venture, given a body of experience testing candidates of all levels of <br> experience, expertise, and "holes" in their knowledge base.  I hope they will <br> chime in with their thoughts.  <br> <br> Will Truitt<br> </div> <div><snip> </div> <div>So back to the real question.  If aural tuning tends to deliver less consistent <br> results in the temperament and octave sections than electronic tuning, then why <br> do we insist that the testing in those sections be done aurally and exclude a <br> purely electronic approach?<br> </div> <div>David Love</div> </font></blockquote></div><br></body></html>