Allan Day writes: >Debating the merits of aural tunings vs. Accu-tunings is probably >healthy. But like any controversial issue there will always be strong >opinions on both sides. A few of my aural tuning Colleagues in VT are >happy converts to the Accu-tuner. I can see their points I almost took >the plunge myself. > There are 2 points however that kept me away from using one: >1. Tailoring the tuning to the artist. I see all the verbage about >FAC's and calculating the stretch factor to accommodate the >inharmonicity of the piano. However, where that might be arguably good >for the piano what if the artist doesn't like it? > After one has developed a rapport with an artist you can please >him/her by executing their favorite tuning according to their >individual taste. Its like being a chef rather than a recipe follower. > How does the accu-tuner deal with this need to over-ride the >arbitrary nature of its program? Allan, those are questions are excellent. Although I use an electronic tuning device (ETD) regularly now, I was trained to tune aurally by Virgil Smith and Robert Carbaugh back in the 70's. I tuned by ear exclusively for my first 10 years before starting with an SAT. With the Accu-Tuner, the tuner does not have to use the FAC program for every tuning. Although FAC does a good job on most pianos, there are at least two alternatives: 1. Record your own best aural tuning, or several tunings for a piano. 2. Use Chameleon 2 to calculate a tuning with any octave width you choose. (I usually hesitate to mention my own products on pianotech, but Allan's question goes to the heart of why I created the Chameleon 2, and Reyburn CyberTuner programs. The following is a brief explanation of these.) Chameleon 2 (Ch2) is a software program which uses digital audio to record the piano, and calculate a tuning based on 5 or 6 A's and your choice (or the artist's choice!) of tuning style. It does anything from squeaky clean octaves to super-stretch octaves. Ch2 is a component in two of our programs: Tuning Manager for Macintosh (TM) Reyburn CyberTuner for Macintosh (RCT) RCT is software which turns a Mac PowerBook into stand-alone ETD, and can use Chameleon 2 tunings, recorded aural tunings, or tunings from an SAT. Either TM or RCT can send Chamelon 2 calculated tuning to a Sanderson Accu-tuner. >2. A recent graduate of the N. Bennett St. School brought his machine >over to show me. He said that the instructors at the school advise that >one should always check or proof the accu-tunings aurally to make sure >it sounds correct. If you know what's correct to begin with, why use >the machine? He couldn't give me a satisfactory answer. Or at least one >that justifies the cost of the machine. > I certainly agree with checking the ETD aurally! The longer I use an ETD the more I am convinced of the need to learn aural tuning first, and the need to check the tuning by ear after using a machine. The machine does for the tuner what a power saw does for a carpenter. Sure you can build anything with a hand saw that you can with a power saw, but if you are a pro, why not use the best equipment to get a quality job done efficiently? We recently built a house, and I would have been very surprised if the carpenters had showed up with only hand saws. Sure, a carpenter needs to learn to use a hand saw first, and they always need one arround, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't take advantage of power saws to do the bulk of the work! The three biggest advantages I see to using an either an SAT or RCT are: 1. Less fatigue in tuning. Most tuners with ETD's are less tired after tuning the same number of pianos, or they can tune maybe one more piano per day with the same fatigue factor. 2. Speed. Let's face it, we all need to make a living at tuning pianos. An ETD speeds up most tuners and increases quality of work at the same time, if used properly. ETD's are especially helpful for pitch raises since they are a fixed pitch target. Doesn't that translate into earning more per day? You could use the extra time to regulate or voice. 3. Repeatablity. I store tunings for important pianos so I can repeat the exact same tuning again. I don't have to keep re-inventing the wheel. This is invaluable for pianos which are tuned very often, or for tuning two pianos together. > > I can see the practical application in a university setting or other >multiple piano circumstances. I fight fatigue at the end of a 5 tuning >day. I assume the machine cuts down the fatigue factor. And then there >are the wild pianos that just can't seem to be tamed aurally. A >colleague says its for those pianos and easy pitch raising that he >bought the Accu-tuner. I too find spinets and other PSO's very tiring to tune by ear. On these pianos I use Chameleon 2 and RCT. It gets me 99% of the way very quickly. The last 1% can take a lot time on these pianos, and the time is better spent on action work, pedals etc... I freely admit that my opinion is probably a little biased since I created RCT and Chameleon 2. If anything though, I have become more of a proponent for aural tuning and verification!!! 8-) -Dean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dean L. Reyburn, RPT web page: www.reyburn.com Cedar Springs, MI, USA 1-888-SOFT-440 email: dean@reyburn.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC