All good points. I'm not sure I agree with speed though. Having tuned
aurally for a long time before getting a device I have found that ETD tuning
has been faster on average especially with pitch corrections. Aural tuning,
especially with larger corrections, left me more often missing my target a
factor much greater than the ETD which impacts the ability to deliver a more
stable tuning on the second pass. The ETD does gets me to my target very
reliably, accurately and quickly. Overall, the ETD seems to narrow the
standard deviation for time spent per piano on tuning, at least for me.
I do agree on being careful about the deterioration of certain skills,
though I find it mostly manifests itself in terms of speed. When I do tune
that occasional piano aurally I can tell that my temperament tuning requires
a bit more attention than it did when I was tuning aurally on a regular
basis. One of the great advantages of ETD's in my opinion is in this area.
I just don't think the ear can divide that octave any more precisely than
the machine can whatever type of temperament you prefer. I have not noticed
any change in the skill set tuning outward from the temperament.
The fatigue factor is another issue. With aural tuning and a day of several
scheduled tunings I find that my energy level can vary significantly
between the 1st tuning and the 5th tuning, if I'm being honest. Had I been
the customer I'd probably have preferred being my 1st tuning of the day
rather than the 5th. That's not the case anymore. That alone is
significant for me if I'm concerned about delivering consistent quality day
to day and from one tuning to the next (though I do try and avoid 5 tunings
in a day when possible). That combined with a being able to stay more
closely on schedule especially over a long day with many appointments argued
in favor of switching. At least for me.
David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
rwest1 at unl.edu
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 7:16 AM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [CAUT] using as ETD
Carl Root said: Do you (or does anyone) know of a full time tech who has
used an ETD for a period of time (enough to really understand how it works),
then decided, for whatever reason, to go back to tuning aurally?
Guilty, as charged. I've used an ETD for years for pitch raises and
emergency speed tuning. For a few years I used an ETD to do most of my
tuning. I've had an SAT (and still have one) and an RCT. At one time I had
of a goal of putting 100 tunings of the pianos at the university on my ETD.
Essentially I was using the machine to supertune and store those tunings. I
stopped doing that and returned to strictly aural tuning for several
reasons:
1. My aural skills were slipping as I depended more on the ETD. I had
worked too hard on developing those skills to have them atrophy and depend
more and more on flashing lights.
2. A piano is heard and not seen. Mistakes and sloppiness can occur
whether a person tunes aurally or with an ETD. My tendency was to trust the
machine more than my ears. I determined that I didn't want to go that way.
3. Stored tunings were not always reliable. Pianos change from season to
season. I found that a "supertuning" stored in one season was not a
supertuning in another--the dirty little secret behind the tuning test. The
differences were not major, but they were enough to be annoying having
worked so hard to get a high quality tuning and then storing it.
3. Tuning by ear doesn't really take any longer and is more satisfying
personally. ETD'ers seem to believe that "doing all those checks" takes
such a long time. It doesn't, not if you're at the top of your game. I can
touch up a concert instrument in as short a time aurally as I can "messing
with" the buttons and lights of a machine.
4. I don't necessarily believe tuning is "artistic" as some would claim.
I'm more inclined to see it as a puzzle that needs to be solved for every
piano. That's the challenge for me. Listening to what the piano is telling
me, and bringing out the best in it, regardless of the quality of the
instrument. Time and time again I've been surprised at the results. And
satisfied that I did a great job the "old fashioned" way.
5. Negative attitude. Some say, "I do really good work and make my
customers happy, but I don't know about Joe over there. He's a ________
tuner, and, well, his tuning is__________. " I've seen that attitude and I
don't like it whether it comes from an aural tuner or and ETD guy.
6. Customer satisfaction is important, but ultimately you tune for
yourself. You set the standard, not your customer. If you're tuning
professionally, your standard should be a lot higher than most any customer
and if you meet your standards, your customer will be satisfied. Developing
your skill aurally and electronically goes along with the PTG philosophy of
continuing your education and improvement.
7. I tend to be a "universalist." I know I need a flame suit for what I'm
about to say. But I believe that all the talk of tuning styles and degrees
of stretch is overblown and wider ETD use has exacerbated the problem. If
you hold to the "philosophy" that fifths cannot be expanded beyond perfect
and that thirds need to be smooth, then I just don't think your choices for
stretch are all that great. Otherwise your fourths are way too noisy in the
middle of the piano and the 17ths in the top are obnoxiously fast. If you
use the ETD ruler to determine how to stretch, you may put a note in a place
that fits the ruler but is less than optimal because it's somewhere between
what the partials might indicate. In other words, you might choose to add a
1 cents stretch which does put a note slightly high, but it still doesn't
nicely fit in with the partials of several notes. It's a rather arbitrary
setting based on the reading of one partial. Yes, I know tuning is always a
compromise. It's just that I think the compromises are easier when done
aurally.
8. Finally (this has gotten longer than I intended) I don't believe we've
really defined our standards very well. The classic example is the
definition of a octave stretching. The 10th is supposed to be the same as
or "slightly" faster than the 3rd. And the 17th is the same as or slightly
faster than the 10th. The term slightly isn't very precise. Aural tuners
take advantage of this lack of clarity by too often over stretching the
treble. After all, you don't want to leave a note flat so leave it good and
high for safety's sake. ETD'ers will leave notes between the cracks, not
lining up with any particular partials very well, but making a nice spot on
the measuring stick.
9. Finally, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
On Apr 16, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Carl Root wrote:
Dear diehard aural tuners,
I'm curious . . . . .
Do you (or does anyone) know of a full time tech who has used an ETD for a
period of time (enough to really understand how it works), then decided, for
whatever reason, to go back to tuning aurally?
I think I'm correct in saying that most of the RPTs discussing this who are
ETD users passed their exams prior to "converting". . . . . . whereas the
aural tuners in this debate haven't run a machine through its paces, so
their observations aren't really observations, but rather concerns about how
they imagine it works.
An ETD "listens" to all the intervals at once, initially, and produces the
smoothest tuning that the piano's scale will allow. You can then tweak it
to your heart's content, but I'll bet that most of the time, in the process
of "improving" some intervals, you're making others worse (keep in mind, you
can only hear one interval at a time . . . . not very efficient.)
OK, so it has your personal stamp on it, but unless the client is impressed
with your "improvement", I don't see the point. I have other outlets for
expressing myself artistically.
Carl D. Root, RPT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100417/7670604a/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC