[CAUT] Tuning--again

[Fred Sturm]

On Jun 14, 2009, at 12:24 PM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote:
> Secondly, there's always a political element to things, even  
> tuning.  I know you haven't given up on trying to do your best and  
> improve. Some people, however, will use ambiguity, uncertainty, and  
> lack of clarity to give up.  They might say, "No one can tell me  
> what is really right, so I'll stop trying to get it right.  After,  
> all, my customers are satisfied."  Satisfying customers is job one,  
> but striving to do better and set higher personal standards is also  
> part of the job.   I contend that the unintended consequence of  
> whispering, "it doesn't really matter" is that it discourages  
> people.  And that's sad on a personal level.  On a practical level  
> that can be for some beginners or even old timers an excuse for poor  
> work or for just putting the work on cruise and not paying  
> attention.  The opportunity to improve comes from having good  
> information available and being poised and ready to integrate that  
> information personally.  Saying "it doesn't matter" can diminish  
> both sides of that equation.

	Yes, I certainly figured I'd provoke that kind of response. "You  
can't say that. Think what kind of a message it sends." I guess the  
trigger words are "it doesn't matter." Suppose I use them in another  
context. I say that, "Beyond 0.1 cents of resolution, the measurement  
of pitch on pianos doesn't matter." Or, "Beyond 0.1 degrees,  
measurement while setting DB on accujust pins doesn't matter." And I  
do say both things. There are limits to refinement beyond which any  
effort expended is wasted. I challenge anyone to tune or measure a  
string within a finer parameter than 0.1 cents. I've pushed against  
that limit, and it is quite obvious that there is a limit (a fuzzy  
one, but definitely a limit).
	Determining "what matters and what doesn't matter" is a fundamental  
part of becoming a skilled professional.  If we spend a lot of our  
energy pursuing perfections beyond "what matters" and in realms that  
"don't matter," we are wasting that energy. Goodness knows, there is  
always more to do than there is time to do it. We need to focus on  
"what matters."
	In the realm of dividing the octave, and expanding that to the range  
of the piano, there are practical limits to refinement. Staying in the  
area of ET, we should all realize that we are not actually trying to  
approach perfect ET, but rather an emulation of ET. In PTG  
(particularly in the tuning test), we concentrate on progression of  
beat rates in M3 related intervals. This is a practical matter, as it  
makes aural verification more cut and dried. In many cases, this means  
making sizes of 4ths and 4ths and 8vs somewhat inconsistent. We make  
compromises. I believe that experience shows that in any approach to  
"emulated ET" throughout the piano, we come to a point where any  
change to improve one thing will be at the expense of another. At that  
point, further attempts at refinement becomes time and effort wasted.  
(The same can be said for refinement of stretch).
	UET raises other interesting questions. It is clear that many people  
successfully tune in prominent places using various formulae of UET,  
and do so either in a "stealth" manner or overtly. These tunings are  
found acceptable, clearly (and let's leave aside assertions of whether  
they are preferred to ET or not - that is beside the point in this  
argument). Even the most fervent promoters of UETs say that, when they  
use mild UETs, nobody or almost nobody can tell the difference. This  
is very interesting information. It has a bearing on "how perfectly"  
we should strive to "emulate ET." Where are the parameters of "it  
matters/it doesn't matter?"
	I think that is a very important topic to pursue. I have no illusions  
of "solving" it, but I certainly won't stay away from the topic for  
fear of leading people astray.
	BTW, I want to make clear that my somewhat provocative statements  
regarding "nobody being able to tell the difference between Moore and  
ET" are not my firmly held belief. They constitute a hypothesis that I  
would like to explore. As I happen to have created some material with  
which to experiment, I hope to provoke people to listen for  
themselves, in hopes that we may learn more. I think this kind of  
experiment, using recordings of live music, has potential to teach us  
quite a bit on the subject, since it removes much of the  
suggestibility factor.

Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu