Aural?

[Richard Brekne]

David Ilvedson wrote:

> Richard,
>
> Sort of a "if a tree falls in a forest without a human around is there a
> sound"?

Exactly.

> Going back to a  comment you made earlier about the noisy
> environment experience and how they wanted an "ear tuner".  I simply reject
> someone who uses a tuning fork as an ear tuner.

???????????

> So many times I come behind
> "fork tuners" or "tuners with folks" who have left the treble extremely flat
> or the entire piano below pitch.

In relation to what ? I take your point, but for the sake of argument,
seeings
how I assume we both wish to compare quality tunings accomplished by
different
methods, you might be a bit more specific in terms of stretch.

> There is nothing better, IMHO, as an ETD &
> the ears (hey that would be cool, an ETC with ears).  You can't beat that
> combination with a "certain something".

I think you misunderstand what I mean by that certain something... I say
this
because as I meant the term to be understood, the two sentences you just
wrote
are in conflict with one another. That "certain something" is exactly that
human
quality that you combine with your ETD. The ETD takes you so far.. but you
simply have to judge with your ears... better said with your human sense of
musical judgement to decide whether its good enough, or not. In the end it
is
you.

> When the piano is tuned for a
> Master Tuning for a PTG tuning test by 3 RPTs, I can quarantee you they
> don't decide when its correct by a "certain something" or "sounds just
> right" criteria.  They use traditional aural tests...guess what?

Well of course... thats what ear tuning is all about.. but you see even the
aural tests are not 100 % reliable. The inharmonicity of the piano may
require
that some pretty severe sacrifices must be made and thats where things
start
getting really subjective. In these cases an ETD is helpless, it CAN be
used to
visually verify partial relationships by directly referencing one and
comparing
to the other.. but beyond that its a human call.

> A SAT and
> the RCT can get a 100% on all the sections just by stopping the lights.

Even if this was so, (and I am not so sure that it is) this 100% 
as you and I both know it by no means represents a tuning that
cannot be significantly improved upon in nearly every single case by a well
trained ear attached to the head of a tech with some good years of
experience 
under his or her belt. We return to that human quality in the end.

>  The stability section is another thing all together and where the tuner is
> exposed if un-prepared.  What does this all mean?  Nothing in the real
> world.  There will be lousy tuners and good tuners.  Some will have a tuning
> fork and some won't.  If I was looking for a technician to help me in my
> work I would want someone who learned to tune with a fork but was now using
> a ETD and their ears when appropriate.

I grant you all this agree. But all this is besides the point as Gina
pointed
out when she thought I was talking about "how we tune" instead of our more
philosophical edge (your tree falling analogy if you will). It doesnt
really
matter how you go about achieving the tuning.. in the end we tune aurally
as
Gina put it. Tuning in iself is a human concept, aside from all the
nitpicking
about variances in partial behavior, the reliablity of and ETD in general,
the
dependability of calculated tuning curves, etc etc ad absurdum..... we
still are
talking about something WE as humans perceive, define, and judge. It is in
this
sense that in the end we cannot escape but tuning aurally..

Those who simply set the tuning pins where the dial tells them too are not
tuning the piano. The result may or may not be a well tuned piano to be
sure...
but tuning is a concious effort, not just a physical process.

As is often the case in such discussion, I would tend to think we aggree by
far
more then we disagree, tho we may have fun arriving at that conclusion.
grin.

I suppose I should have left this response to Ron N. I have not his knack
of
putting these kinds of things into such short and wonderfully descriptive
sentences.

>
>
> Richard B. wrote:
>
> >if you cant hear a thing, their is no sense of its sound.
>
> David Ilvedson, RPT
>

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway