[CAUT] using as ETD

[tnrwim at aol.com]

Jim
 
I'm sure there are many tuners who can set a temperament in only a few minutes. When I was doing strictly aural tunings, on average, I took less than 5. But, and this is where the argument comes from, as Jeff Tanner pointed out, there are times when that 5 minutes turns into 15, and even then the tuning gives you fits all the way up and down the keyboard. 
That's when that ETD looks awfully good. 

I totally agree that one should never leave a piano tuned to the ETD alone. It does need to be used as a tool, along with what ever your ear tells you. 
 
Wim




-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu>
To: caut at ptg.org <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2010 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [CAUT] using as ETD



Wim,
 
I’ll be the one to disagree here. I’ve seen techs like Terri Nimmi who blow me away with how fast they tune aurally, and they tell me the ETD just get’s in their way. LaRoy Edwards once told me that you should be able to set a temperament in about two minutes. (I take about 4) ETD tuning might be faster for you, and maybe for most of us, but I still tune the bass and upper treble aurally and feel I’m faster than watching jiggly lights or screens. I know all the arguments on both sides, and like Elwood said, this “debate” will never change anyone’s mind. I’ll stick with my statement; nearly every ETD tuning can be enhanced by good aural listening/tweaking, and every aural tuning can be smoothed out or improved by careful examination using an ETD. Most people will do it their own way, anyway.
 
I’m fine with those who thinks that one way is better than another for them. God bless ‘em. Your point about saving time is a good one, but only your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions… Let’s agree to disagree, but share as many “tricks” as we know for the betterment of us all. Vive La Différence!
 
Your shot… <G>
 
Regards,
Jim
 
 
 


The Aural vs. ETD debate is on!  No one’s mind will  be changed.  Gotta go tune a practice room piano.

Joy!

Elwood


Forgive me, Elwood, but this is not the usual ETD vs Aural debate. This debate has nothing to do with whether an ETD tuning is better than an Aural tuning. It's all about saving time. 

 

You just got back tuning a practice room piano. You took, what, about an hour to do that? What if I told you that there is a way to tune that practice room piano exactly the same way you just tuned it, but instead of taking an hour, you could do it 45 minutes. Would that be of interest to you? What if I told you that you could tune all the practice rooms in your school, and all the other pianos in your school, in 45 minutes, instead of an hour. Would that be of interest to you? I don't know how many piano you have, but if you have 50 pianos, you just saved your self 12 and a half hours of work. 

Using an ETD is not about the quality of the tuning, but the time it takes. I'm sure you're aural tunings are fantastic, and dead on. But how many times have you been late for supper, or had no supper at all, or had to come in on a weekend, or ....., because you had to tune a piano at school. What if you could spend that extra 15 minute voicing the piano, or doing some minor regulation, or whatever, instead of tuning it? Would that be of interest you?

 

The bottom line, Elwood, is that an ETD is a time saver. It also, as a side benefit, is a stress reducer. And last, but not least, it allows you to put exactly the same tuning on each one of the pianos in your school, every time you tune it, without having to take the time to set a temperament, which, in itself, takes 15 minutes.  

I know you enjoy tuning the pianos aurally. But let me ask you one more questions. Would you rather tune a piano, or spend time with your family? 

 

Wim



 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100412/cb06a9bc/attachment-0001.htm>