[CAUT] Tuning--again

[Ed Sutton]

Fred and Richard-

An interesting experiment is to measure the pitch of a tuning fork several 
times, or to measure it several times as the tone decays. Using Cybertuner's 
Pianalyzer function I often get variations of as much as 0.6 cents. 
Sometimes I get 3 or 4 identical readings in succession, then a very 
different reading.

Perhaps this is an artifact of Cybertuner, but I think more likely we have 
to admit that big things (multi-molectular things, like tuning forks and 
pianos) don't take their Hertz as seriously as we do.

[Besides collecting tuning forks, I have tried experiments in close 
calibration, for demonstration and ear-training. Sometimes we just can't 
help ourselves...]

I think that optimal professional piano service involves a very carefully 
informed sense of what appropriate degree of accuracy we are capable of 
delivering in a particular situation. We should be attempting the very best 
possible, and not attempting what is impossible unless we're on our own 
time. Defining the appropriate/optimal/possible is a life's work.

"A piano technician makes more moral decisions in 20 minutes than a preacher 
makes in a week." Wish I knew who said that.

Ed S.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Tuning--again


> 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
>
>
>