Electronic ears & tolerance

[A440A@aol.com]

Greetings to all,

      I hope I am not one of the " deaf tuners and numbers freaks", but the
urge to write my thoughts on the SAT/Aural comparison has become like a
molassas undertow, I can feel the drag pulling me to where I am just sure the
water is a lot deeper,  and I will be in over my head before I know it.
     I am trying to wade in awfully advanced company,  Fred and Jim have very
ably mapped some distant territory for us SAT users.  They at times leave me
dizzy, trying to think over what I am reading, as I read it.
     I also find it fascinating that we, the English, the Dutch, and the "
EVERYBODY all over the world" can be in contact so quickly, and compare
fairly complicated perspectives in the common language of beats, cents, and
sniveling miserly customers.  Barrie is giving us a grandstand view of the
ETD's entry into the British market, as well as Andre and OOrbek of theirs.
This is magic!!

        These several postings caught my attention:  (forgive the anonymity,
I just sorta vacuumed the remarks as I read the mail)

> The same goes for good well-scaled instruments where using the SAT
>sometimes feels unnecessery. For the not-so-well-scaled small upprights a
>FAC tuning gives me a very good foundation to get things right.

      I once heard Dr. Al Sanderson say that a perfect piano was needed for a
perfect machine tuning, and I really agree.
      I have virtually no experience with these small uprights, but numerous
postings seem to have pointed out shortcomings of the ETD on poor scales.  It
seems that the spinet or console tuning requires more aural "policing" than
 those on large grands.
     On the big pianos, the ETD numbers line up so closely that the
practical/theoretical difference is so small that things other than stretch
assume more importance.  Once again,  the veteran position comes from Jim
Coleman,  "Unisons!".  Witness the results of the Coleman/Smith tune-off.  I
think, if you can tune like Virgil Smith, you should not expect the SAT to
improve your tuning,  but most of the aural-only tuners I have heard condemn
the machine can't, in practise, match it, much less surpass it.

>The best time with the SAT is when I have the time to sit down at a piano
>and listen, watch and learn, trying different things.

     The best time for me is when the artist is on the way, the lights have
just been lit, and you must do a 1 1/2 hour tuning in 50 minutes. (88 clicks
on the foot switch).
     The second best time is when you are tuning a piano everyday for a solid
week, and the last four tunings are just keeping everything within
tolerance.................

      Tolerance, I suppose, is what I really sat down to write about.
      Considerable bandwidth has been spent on factors that affect tuning on
the order of 1 cent or less.  The point I have not seen made, insofar as the
value of the SAT is concerned,  is it's ability to respond to quite small
pitch raises encountered in   concert level tuning. (I just read Michel
Lachance's post, he does address this)
      It seems to be, that the 25% correction factor is valid for pitch
raises up to 50 cents, usually leaving the piano very close to standard
pitch.( i.e. ready to be really tuned).  However, if a piano is only 4 cents
flat in places, and you are only going to tune it once, lack of the overpull
supplied by the SAT  pitch raise program will introduce a deviation of a cent
in your tuning these areas.  Can we afford to just toss one cent tolerance
into a tuning because the piano was not at exact pitch to begin with?  Then
how much tolerance do we have in the unison?  Error is cumulative, so all of
it is important.  This is a strong point in the use of SATs, or as I
understand, Dean Reyburn's program.
      I hit the pitch raise buttons on a 2 cent raise.  Why not?  I paid for
that feature, and I am gonna get every cent's worth I can!!
      Another tolerance is that which must be shown for the tuner that
condemns the machine.  Tuning is the "cream" of the trade.  Through tuning,
many of us find our customers for our regulation and rebuilding.   When the
"cowboys with the SAT" gets those tunings,  they also gets the repairs and
rebuilds, which they then proceed to butcher. Is this why we tear our hair
out?  I think so.   Competition breeds better tuners, though it does mean
more work.  I want to be fully armed when I compete.
     Finally,  the tolerance for one another that we show, and receive on
this list is our greatest asset.  It fosters honest communication, which is
becoming more valuable and scarce all the time.    It seems that we all know
how to disagree gracefully; the references to flame suits and smouldering I
remember seeing on the list last year and the year before have become only a
memory.  Perhaps the newcomers will occasionally come on brashly, but with
tolerance, they will understand we have little to prove, but much to gain
from civility.
    { OK, either the undertow has lessened, or the tide has turned, I should
stop this scandalous  use of bandwidth}.

regards to all.
Ed Foote
Precision Piano Works
Nashville, Tn.

 <he rambles, he types,  he punctuates, he wonders if that Scotch is really
worth half a tuning per bottle.....He wonders if we are ready for another
riddle,  (maybe one in Bb??????..(:)}}}