Hi Fred. I look forward to getting some PC time to sit and listen you your recordings. I've up to this point never had a problem discerning between an ET and a Well, and have run into so far 2 pianists at the U that immediately pick up on the difference as well. Still I rose your exact point in a similar discussion a couple years back and Ed Foote was immediately on line with a reply claiming his classes on the matter show conclusively the majority of techs Do hear the difference. I defer to him on that issue. As to what the Tuneoffs show or not. I Dont think they can show anything even close to conclusively as to whether it matters or not. They were not designed to do so. In fact, they weren't really designed to show anything at all directly. As to whether it matters or not. This immediately depends on the arena we are in. Clearly for most listeners it makes no difference... not even indirectly. But to show whether it matters or not, you have to design a test which first shows whether or not any significant number of people can notice such nuances in tunings. I would be very very surprised, given the amazing quality of the humans senses when first really put to tests to find there were not some significant numbers of people who are capable of hearing such differences right off, and even perhaps a few at this point who consciously can identify what those differences are about. I'll turn your other reasoning around on you just for the sake of making a point. We could just as easily say "It is a hard concept for piano techs to accept that it DOES make a difference since we have invested so many resources in acquiring and using ETDs, and find so many easy shortcuts in their use that provide large amounts of motivation to justify saying... it doesn't matter". Let me stretch the point just a bit further... in perhaps a bit over obvious direction but one that illustrates my point. At this stage in keyboard development and for the greatest percentage of listeners... most can not discern the difference between the keyboard and an acoustic piano. So really.. by the same reasoning it really doesn't matter whether we use a Clavinova, or a piano... with rare exception. Case in point... just tuned for the Eagles a week back. They had this Yamaha C7 equipped with factory installed just about ever midi / effects electronics you could imagine, and built in Helpenstill (Sp?) type microphones. The thing sounds just like an electric piano. Perhaps the pianist himself sitting on the stage may have been able to notice some real acoustic properties... but most certainly no-one else in the audience would hear those.... yet that sound was immediately accepted as piano sound. Piano sound is getting morphed slowly but surely into a synthetic reconstruction of it in the minds of more and more people all the time. Your question as to whether it matters or not really and very quickly evolves into a much larger question that get right into human evolution / philosophical issues to begin with. I'd say right off the top, yeah... it does matter. Not necessarily in a sense that requires me to place some value comparison on the "matter-ness" of it all. But there are noticeable differences, and they most certainly do matter. Cheers RicB > Still... they did show one thing. The audience at hand was not able to make a conclusive choice. Which either says more about the audience then >anything else... or that once you get past a certain degree of refinement we move over into the arena of how conscious the tuning was and how well >the result matches the intent. Or they show that, beyond a certain point of refinement, it really doesn't matter. Which is a hard concept for a piano technician to grasp, since we spend so much time obsessing over those details. We very badly want them to matter to our customers and our audience. I'm not at all sure that, beyond unisons, they do. Within a fairly wide (to our way of thinking) set of parameters. I know it's a shocking point of view, and that I should whisper it and hold my head in shame (because I obviously just don't have the chops to accomplish a fine tuning, or to distinguish one <G>), but it's the conclusion I have come to increasingly over time. On a somewhat related matter, I have written more than once about my Moore/ET experiments, and about my recordings that use both. I have now completed production and release of the CD that is about half and half ET and Moore (half the tracks one, half the other), and it is on the web at http://cdbaby.com/cd/fredsturm5 with samples (about a minute each) of all tracks. This recording was a redo of my first CD, which I recorded in ET. For my own amusement, and the possible edification of others, I have made a compilation of the two, with paired tracks. In each case, the first track is from the first CD, in ET. The second is the same music played on the same piano by the same pianist in either ET or Moore. They sound different, because one is five years later than the other and I changed performance (I certainly hope for the better), and the sound quality is better (better equipment and recording engineer). But you get a chance to hear the piece in ET, knowing it is ET, before trying to judge whether a track of the same piece is ET or Moore. I'll bring some copies to Grand Rapids in case anyone is interested. At some point I'll post some of them them to my web page, when I finally get through with designing and implementing it. (Too many more interesting things to do <G>). If we can't distinguish between ET and Moore, can we distinguish between a "highly refined" "aurally perfected" tuning (ET or whatever) and one that hasn't been so refined? It makes one wonder. At any rate, it makes ME wonder. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC