Ok.. I have been reading with interest the comments on this thread and related ones running. Specially as it relates to this idea of creating the "optimal" tuning program. We get into problems that have been met before and the circle goes round and round. Seems to me that we are off on a wrong tangent when we talk about "optimal tuning". There will never be such a thing, and it is the nature of the instrument that forbids this. And this is probably just as well... grin... gives us something to continue to shoot at I suppose. But beyond a certain point of acceptablity, tunings are not a matter of optimiliztion, rather they are a creative effort subject to our designs, whatever they may be at any given particular moment. The greatest tuners are those who are able to "colour" a piano just by tuning it. This implicitly implies conscious choice, or at least sentient choice. ETD's today cannot solve more then a tiny few. of the constant flow of problems the ear deals with when exercising an aural tuning. True, they can tell us pertainant information about partials for a given string, they can even project theoretical tuning curves based on samples of just a few notes and arrive at an impressively close to acceptable tuning. But as they say... close is no cigar. ETD's can "help" us arrive at a better tuning then we could do by ear alone, yet it remains that the ear alone can and will continue to be able to do a better job then the ETD alone. Note that the key phrase here is "to be able". Clearly one needs a pretty well trained ear to consistantly out preform the best "pure" ETD tunings. Yet this level of training is withing the grasp of most of us. It seems to me that instead of trying to create an ETD that can tell us how to tune, we should be looking for a device that can simply supplement and confirm, perhaps even refine upon what our ears deliver to our brain. An ETD that would allow us to compare the coincident partials of two notes would be much more valuable to my mind of thinking. This would mean more then one display readout, and would require a solution to the time it takes to compare two sets of partials. As for the comparison problem, this is actually already relativly easy to do and does not require much time. One simply references an existing string partial frequency by zero-ing the display on it, and then compare the string to be tuned to that reference. If (for example Tune Lab) included a feature for displaying how many bps any given frequency was from a given referenced frequency, and expounded upon this idea to include two or even three such references and displays at a time, we could quickly learn to put this information into the same and proper perspective that we have had to do with the same kind of information suppied to us by our ears. If this kind of approach was combined with present tuning curve projection systems we might be on to a tool that could open an entirely new world of tuning. Even such a system tho, however refined would still be cold and lifeless without the judgement of a human being, to decide what "sound" is most pleasing at any given time. What we really need from an ETD is not "how to tune a piano", rather it should be a visual supplement to the ear, one capable of helping us zero in on how any two sets of partial ladders are intereacting at any given time. Our brains and our creative natures are better equipped by nature to do the rest. my view...grin. -- Richard Brekne Associate PTG, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC