Ahoy Jim B, Now Jim, you rascal. You know that Dr. C. didn't make any claims on the correctness of either aural or ETD tuning, so be nice. He was questioning the consistency of reproduction of an entirely aurally produced tuning (of no defined quality) and I think he's right. I'd bet that same banquet ticket that I couldn't reproduce a tuning aurally within a 0.3 cent tolerance and I can whomp up a pretty presentable aural tuning on a good day with the wind at my back and the kids in school. The fact that a 'best sounding' tuning can be produced by so many different methods, with so many different temperaments just points out the difficulty of trying to quantify subjectivity. The best (subjectively) and the most uniform (objectively) tunings almost certainly are ETD augmented aural, or aurally augmented ETD. I haven't abandoned straight aural because it seems like it would really hurt to whack yourself in the knee with a SAT. Maybe the SAT IV will be smaller, or padded. Ron >In a message dated 6/16/98 11:04:15 AM, pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU wrote: > ><<"For several days I have let stand a statement with which I strongly >disagree:">> > >>>""Aural tuning by far is more accurate where as ETD gets you close.""<< > >Dr Coleman; > I won't disagree with you here however ................I do have a question >:-) >Is a tuning that is most accurately, mathmatically, correct, necessarily the >best sounding tuning? >Jim Bryant (FL) > > --pasted-- (No Jim, not you #-) ) > Or as Dr. Coleman said, as he so adroitly sidestepped my question :-), "I don't really know. There is so much variation possible.". Jim Bryant (FL) "just carry a clipbaord Son, nobody will question you" Faintly Dull Ron
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC