I am thrilled to hear of the Chicago Chapter's event (there have been references to it in the previous weeks) and concur with the kudos. Only and organization such as PTG has the ability to pull off such complex production. On 10/17/96, Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU> rote: <<Totals were: Coleman 306 Smith 238, undecided 120. There will be a full report in the Jan Journal.>> I'm not statistician, but I think we can draw some interesting conclusions. At any instance where an audience member might register a preference, there was an 82% chance that they had a preference to register (544/644), However, when a preference was registered, the division (56% and 44%) was not statistically significant. Maybe more of a divergence will show up when you look at the data strictly from the adagio sections, versus the prestos where the intervals go by too quickly for aural judgements. On 10/17/96, Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU> rote: <<Virgil and I do not consider this a win for either, but a win for both. If we had both done better, it would have been 50-50. We are hoping that other more virile and younger technicians will pick up the gaunlet and continue this tradition so that we will all benefit more in the future.>> I agree that it's a win-win situation, but I don't think that any movement from the already statistically insignificant 44-56% to an even 50-50% has anything to do with how well you and Virgil do your work. What you folks have provided for us is a proof in the pudding. Nominally, the comparison was between aural and electronic tuning. What further highlights the results is that the aural tuner was no man-off-the-street, but Virgil Smith. No one could better illustratethe eccentricities which can develope during a tuning when the human mind is making the decisions. I say this with all due respect and some affection for Virgil. But I also say it as someone who has struggled through his written explanations. I have also left his tuning classes (Philly '91, and KC '94) praying that under relaxed conditions Virgil could produce a tuning acceptable by conventional standards. Here Virgil made a proper presentation (though not the first time before the Chi Chapt). What may we learn from this? In this test a jury of peers showed no clear choice for either acoustic or aural tuning. Presumably, unless Virgil restained some of his more unconventional inclinations, his aural tuning should have been a good contrast to the more ordered electronic tuning. The extent to which Virgil's tuning differed from what the rest of us aural tuners would have done is actually the width of tolerance allowable for a pleasing tuning. As such it is also a lesson in tolerance for unconventional ideas such as Virgil's. But in all of this we have to keep in mind Jim's report that he "tuned unisons by ear except in the treble." He continues, "My personal feeling is that during the listening we were concerned more with the unisons than anything else. The slight difference in voicing, temperament or octaves may have influenced some, but with whatever the slight variations there were, the results were so close." Just what do we have? Does it really boil down to a jury with no clear preference in a choice between Jim's and Virgil's unisons, both of which were done aurally? Well, if both tunings are in somebody's SAT or RCT, then we've really got something to "analyze the bejeebers out of". (Correct me, is this the first time a Virgil tuning has been "captured"?) Most important of course is the common effort of all involved to judge two tunings the only way they can be judged. My hat is off to the entire crew. Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter (P.S. Sorry about running on. If I talked to human beings more, I'd talk less to this computer.) "The truth is inside you, Don Octavio. I cannot help you find that." The mother of a delusional patient to his psychiatrist in "Don Juan DeMarco"
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC