ETD curves vs Ear curves, was Tuning forks

[Brian Henselman]

Richard,

These are really good points.  Let's for the argument concede that any well
calibrated machine can be more accurate it's human counterpart.  However, is
"accuracy" always better?

To date, I have never seen a perfect piano.  Each piano has flaws, some
subtle, some catastrophic.  But a piano's personality is a direct result of
this blend of imperfections and design compromises.  Sound a lot like
tuning, doesn't it?

Tools and machines are incredible (including ETD's).  However, at what point
do we cease to perform the art of tuning, and become nothing more than the
"servant" for the machine?

Pianos are imperfect, and I think it's a fool's game to think that a
"perfect/accurate" machine tuning curve will always yield the best results.
Show me a piano that is slightest bit off pitch since that last time it was
tuned, and I'll show you a piano that will float-up, or drop-down, as the
unisons are tuned.  That's where the "adventure" begins.  I tune many of the
same pianos every week for local pubs, and clubs.  They are never exactly
where they were when I tuned them last, and they'll never be exactly that
way again.  That's what makes it fun.  Every tuning is a puzzle, just
waiting to be solved.

I LOVE aural tuning!  Can someone tell me that they honestly "LOVE" watching
spinning lights going clockwise or counterclockwise?

Believe me guys, I have nothing against the machines.  They are to aural
tuners, what digital pianos are to Steinway.  Different strokes for
different folks.

Again, you make some really good points.

Cheers,
Brian Henselman, RPT
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Brekne <richardb@c2i.net>
To: pianotech@ptg.org <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Friday, October 29, 1999 5:14 PM
Subject: ETD curves vs Ear curves, was Tuning forks


>>
>
>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
>