>As always, another well considered approach. I've been toying with the >idea of a machine, but they leave so many questions. And a machine leaves >so much room for error of something isn't just 'right' about some of the >strings. Guess I'm stuck withe lobes for quite awhile yet. >les bartlett Sorry Les, this isn't for you specifically, but more a general observation along the lines you indicate. The ear seems to have a "minimum garbage" setting that is conspicuously missing from the hardware versions of tuning computers. In my often dubious opinion, that's the thing that makes the ear indispensable to the process, even with the machine. Having done a fair amount of computer programming myself, I can see why that's the case. It's pretty bloody tough to quantify a subjective analog quantity to a digital scale. What assigned integer value will qualify as the minimum threshold for adequacy, or do we need a double precision floating point variable to handle it? It can't be a boolean function, because that would be either true, or false. Perhaps there will eventually be a "thereabouts" variable available to the digital prestidigitators that will do the trick, but in the mean time, it's listen, listen, listen. Realistically, there's plenty of evidence to the effect that the most reliable combination may be aurally validated digital. Then again, if it was all that critical either way in real world situations, wouldn't the case for either aural or digital methods be more obvious? Just what is being debated in this aural/digital thing? From what I've seen, experienced, and read on this list ad nauseam, I must conclude that the quality of the tuning is ultimately in the eye of the customer, but will be debated infinitely and far beyond all reason among the practitioners as a case of "my A's shinier than your A", and "I have better octaves", or temperaments, or unisons, or hammer technique. There are work arounds for the problems encountered in both aural and digital tuning methods and associated hardware and software, so neither method seems to be a perfect or perfectable way of dealing with the imperfect pieces of .. musical shelving that we deal with on an everyday basis. There are tuners out there who can't tune their way out of a paper bag who have fiercely loyal customers, while other tuners who are well above average can't feed themselves tuning pianos. There are also tuners who aren't that good at what they do that aren't making it and others that are very good that have more work than they can handle. How does all this equate? Maybe it's not the fork, or the machine, or the hammer technique, or the yellow page ad, or the angle of the check pattern on the sport coat that really makes the difference to the customer. Maybe any decent and conscientiously applied tuning by a personable tech that gives the impression that he/she has the welfare of the customer in mind rather than the number of dollars he/she can extract from the transaction will stand on it's own merit, without carrying a label signifying either a machine, or an aural process. Whatever you do tuning a piano, it could be done better by someone's criteria, so why not just do the best you can under the circumstances, with whatever means you have at your disposal, assuming that your methods and results will change with time, for better or worse, and just get on with it? None of us, I hope, are what we were last year, or what we will be next year. It's called "growth", which sounds like a skin condition if you didn't know the definition, but nevertheless is an indication that we are learning. The secession of learning is death, and we shouldn't be too anxious to arrive. Bad week. I appreciate your indulgence. Thanks for listening. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC