ETD curves vs Ear curves, was Tuning forks

[Richard Brekne]

>

Brian wrote:

>
> However, concert tuning is another matter.  I don't think that it is an
> accident that most serious artists that perform at our local performance
> venues specifically request aural concert tuning.  I've never had someone
> call and request an ETD tuning, but I've seen numerous times that I was
> called specifically because I won't use an ETD.
>
> Yes, ETD's can and often do a good job, even for concert work.  But no one
> is going to convince me that as long as I have good ears, that I should let
> a machine do all of the "thinking."  Just my $.02 worth.
>
> Cheers,
> Brian Henselman

We are getting into a couple areas here that kinda lie at the heart of the ETD
vs Aural tunings discussion. I recently had an interesting exchange off list
with Dr Coleman about computer generated curves. He wrote me in response to my
last posting on Tunelab used as a device to do exactly what we do with our ears.
I called it direct partial matching, he called it something else, and related
that he'd been there, done that, thinking at that earlier time in his life that
this idea was good, and much like what we do with our ears. He also related that
he is now of the believe that tuning curves generated by these ETDs are more
"accurate" then what the ear can achieve, if one is good enough and carefull
enough to insure the proper use of the EDT.

This left me wondering abit about the idea of "accuracy" neccessary to come to
that conclusion. ...


My own limited use of Cyber Ear, and Tune Lab (I have used both now for about 50
tunings each) leads me to believe that the Cyber Ear / Sat approach (ie
generated tuning curves based on sampling of partial ladders) leads to
wonderfully spaced tones that need only minor corrections for problem notes
(mostly in the bass). These tunings result in the piano haveing a particular
"presence" when played. I have to admit I like the feeling I get when playing a
piano after tuning it carefully with Cyber Ear. It just sounds very much more
"there". Yet there is still much that bothers me about calling this "more
correct" which is the flip side of saying that "deviance" from such a curve by
aural tuning is equivalant to "error". I am not yet convinced that the smooth
curve generated by ETD's should be considered "correct" in any sense of the word
at all. My favorite EDT tuning to date was done with Tunelab, useing the direct
partial matching approach. Aural checking to keep things in line was confined to
makeing sure that 3rds, octave-and-3rds, and double octave-and-3rds were
progressing evenly, and never allowed to beat faster then my ear liked. This
tuning also provided the same kind of "presence" I mentioned above, but I much
prefered the speed of beating intervals. Almost sensual 3rds in the lower tenor.
It also caused some variance in the progression of Octaves (being a 3rds
prioritised tuning). But whose to say that that is "wrong" or less "correct" ?
I just wonder about this.

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway