Ed Foote on the Box (was NY Times Article)

[BobDavis88@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/24/2000, Ed Foote writes:

>      We can't refine an aural tuning over and over again,  we must start 
from 
>  new every time, but, if we record our best aural tuning, we can 
continually 
>  modify it until is exactly like we want. 

Almost true, but the target keeps changing. The rabbit jumps halfway to his 
hole once more with each refinement, but having achieved a "perfect" tuning 
[where I brought my previous tuning in the box and refined it until I 
couldn't change anything] on a piano I tune every couple of weeks, I was 
puzzled at my dissatisfaction with the results six months later. I wondered 
at first if I could perhaps be growing as a tuner, but surely not, having 
reached perfection.... 

It turns out that I really DON'T tune the same piano the same way each time. 
The explanation lies in the fact that the FREQUENCIES of the partials change 
due to humidity and plain aging (the inharmonicity doesn't measure the same 
every time), and the BALANCE of the partials (and even the frequency) changes 
with voicing. Different voicing requires a different stretch.

Since I agree completely with your basic feelings toward the Box, Ed, I hate 
to niggle; but we refine the box tuning with the ear, and the ear with the 
box, a superb tuning results, then the piano we are measuring changes. At the 
highest level, there are still some refinements necessary at every tuning.
 
>        There may be tuners that can do a better job without a machine than 
>  with one, but I don't see how.  

Or why. I would still stack that stored, refined tuning up against most 
strictly aural tunings, my own included, on a time-after-time repeatability 
basis. 

Bob Davis