Huh??

[Jim]

>From Jim Coleman,Sr.

On Sun, 28 Jul 1996 JIMRPT@aol.com wrote:

......
>
>  "In most "Master Tuning" sessions more time is wasted because the 3
>     individual tuners may have a slightly different view of what kind of
>     octave stretch should be used.  This causes them to continue to redo
>     each other's work until they finally settle down to something they
>     can all live with."
>
>   I thought this was the purpose of  having three RPTs do the master tuning,
> i.e. so that one point of view would not prevail.  And that the process was
> designed to give the person being tested a very good tuning to match without
> it being skewed by, say, the planetary tuning theory as practiced by one of
> the RPTs.

> ... I did not post this to the list but you may reply to the list if you
> choose to.
> Jim B. (FL)

You are right Jim.  The purpose of having 3 people on the "Master Tuning"
is to balance out the strong willed individuals on the committee so that
the examinee has a fighting chance.  My only defense in writing what I did
to you was that by now one would think that there should be some unanimity
among us as to what the octave stretch should be in temperament setting.
I think it is safe to say that I have been involved in over 150 master
tuning situations.  Most of the time was spent nit-picking the temperament.
Most everything else was a breeze.  Most Tuners agree that the 4-2 type
octave should be wide so that in a 3rd-10th type test, the 10th would be
from 1/4 to 1/2 beat per second faster than the M3rd.  If we could agree
on a specific amount, then much time would be saved by just programming
a machine for that kind of stretch and that part of the tuning would be
settled in about 15 minutes.

Thanks for your insight and incite.

Now for a little extra freebee.

Have you ever noticed how those who are opposed to using machines are
quick to point out the dangers of the machine in the hands of a novice,
but never seem to point out the worse dangers of the ears of a novice?

For over 35 years I have tried to show the importance of using good tools,
even in tuning.  Having an X-ray machine does not make one a Doctor.
But not having one certainly does not make him a better Doctor.  I don't
know how to make this any clearer.  I have not received one response
to my announcement last week about the great Tune-off in Chicago in Oct.
I expect to prove that there is no appreciable difference in good tuning
with a machine and good tuning without a machine.  If that does not put
an end to the potshots back and forth between aural and machine
tuning, I just don't know what will.

Ok, its safe to come out now, I'm down off of my soapbox.

Thanks for listening.

Jim Coleman, Sr. (AZ)