Ears vs machines (Was Tuning forks)

[Brian Henselman]

Michel,

I kinda like the thought that I'm both the prosecuter and the defense all in
one.  (heh heh)

It's not that I expect my "hearing" or "ears" to improve by tuning aurally
only.  Instead, I expect my mind to improve in what it "perceives" that my
ears "hear".  The irony of it is, I have always had lousy hearing!  My ears
have never been better than 80% normal hearing sensitivity.

This means that from day 1, I have always valued what my ears tell me.
Whether this information comes from my ears or eyes may seem immaterial to
an Electronic tuner.  But, I assure you that it is relavant to me.  I know
that performing artists don't carry accu-tuners, and many frankly don't care
who tuned the piano, as long as it was done well.

My goal has always been to do it well.  I have always believed that by
strictly "adhering" to what I'm "hearing", that I can best just what to do
next while tuning. By listening, and not watching a display, I believe that
I am listening the same way that the performer will listen.   Hey, the proof
of a good tuning is "in the pudding".  In the end, what's most important is
"how" does the performer hear it?  Does he or she use an ETD, or do they
just listen while playing?  If "ears" are good enough for artists, then why
can't they be good enough for us?

I think that the most important thing that any technician (aural or
Electronic) could do to improve his or her tuning skills, is learn how to
play the piano well enough to "listen".  Learn some of the repertoire that
an artist would use.  Check tests are great, and should be used for both
aural and electronic tuning.  However, actual music is an even better check
test.  The only times that I am aware of having been tripped up with a bad
temperament, or unisons, is when I was too tired or pressed for time to
actually sit down and play the piano for a while when I finished tuning.
Yes, I had used every technicians aural check-test conceivable, except for
one...MUSIC.

The argument shouldn't be man vs machine.  It should be man vs his own
limitations.  Some rightly chose a machine to do their job.  Others look
within.

-Brian Henselman, RPT

>I agree about the fact it is very important to try to improve our hearing
>skill and to rely as much as possible to what our ears are telling us.
>However, I think that if it is true that we do not improve our skill in
>using a visual device without listening to what it does, I don't believe
>tuning aurally will necessarily indulge an automatic hearing improvement
>either.
>
>The problem is that when we want to improve our ears, we use the same organ
>to evaluate the improvement.  In other words, the ears are both the judge
>and the apprentice.  It is like being our own master in learning to play
>golf!
>
>For some unknown reasons, some people seem to be specially gifted and are
>able to hear or to perceive better what they listen to than the common
>person.  But everybody can train their ears to achieve a very high level of
>accuracy.  The ear is a very fine instrument and will adapt itself to the
>standard it is accustomed to.  If it is used to hear lousy tuning, it will
>take this kind of tuning as being the true thing, would it be by ear or
with
>a machine.
>
>I do not believe that the ear improves constantly just by a simple
practice.
>  The ear does need external aid when it is trained to tune pianos.  In the
>aural tuning tradition, these external aids come by means of test
intervals.
>  It is by always submitting our ears to the highest standard that we will
>sharpen our hearing, would it be by multiplying the test interval, or by
>using a very good visual tuning device.
>
>When we start learning tuning piano, we are usually very careful about
>testing over and over and our hearing perception make giant leaps at that
>time.  Then, there comes a time where we sort of set our own standard and
>decide that our tuning is good enough.  This a trap I think many tuners,
>including myself, fell into.  We DECIDE that an octave IS in tune because
it
>SOUNDS in tune to our ears.  This is the point I think where our
>self-improvement shifts to the neutral gear.
>
>Before using an ETD, I though I was a fairly good tuner, so I was told by
>all my clients.  With my first visual tuning however (with a SAT II), I had
>to admit that I was confronted to a higher standard of accuracy.  It is not
>because the octaves sounded necessarily better with the machine, it is
>rather the overall sound of the piano that strucked me first.  And it is
>this kind of sound I am always looking for now, by all means.
>
>>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.
>
>I don't think this is a fair argument.  I have met some musicians who had
>their piano tuned by a machine that was either not adequate, or with a
>ready-made tuning that was not well suited for their instrument.  Their
>conclusion was then that ear was better than the machine.  I think that the
>tune-off's few years ago proved at least one thing:  a visual tuning, when
>professionnaly done with the proprer instrument, is just as good as a
>state-of-the-art aural tuning.
>
>With all due respect!  :-)
>
>Michel Lachance, RPT
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com