>Hi Ron, > >My point is that the data for a *perfect* tuning device would have to be >collected each and every time. Come to think of it...that's just what ears >do? LOLROF! >Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.M.T., R.P.T. Hi Don, An excellent point too. Sorry about the diversion. <G> With tuning, we're trying to hit a moving and indistinctly identified target by applying a largely unquantified process to an incomplete control of mechanisms to produce a result that won't be universally acceptable in the first place. It seems to me that we could draw the lines almost anywhere we chose to take a stand. I'm really very impressed with the progress made in recent years in understanding the physics of tuning, but it's also made me realize more and more how much of the process is damage control in working with the realities built into the piano. I can certainly see where an ETD is an excellent tool for demonstrating the differences between what the math says should be, and what the piano says it wants. Given that the math is worked from necessarily incomplete information gotten from the piano (not everything is measured, and the piano often lies to the ETD anyway), the algorithms seem to be pretty close to the granularity limit of the information available from the piano within a reasonable time frame. As usual, practicality has to meet theory at some usable point if the whole thing is going to do anyone any good. I think they've done an amazing job getting this far. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC