Aural?

[David Ilvedson]

> 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.

???????????

Poorly put, I mean the idea that only tuners with tuning forks use their
ears.


> 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.

In relation to A440. I wasn't comparing a quality tuning in this case.

> 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. 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.

If you ever get a chance to play a Kurzweil electric piano, check out the G#
below middle C.  The unison, if you can call it that, has a real good beat
in it.  I believe that every single Kurzweil has the same beating G#.  I
think it gives it a more piano sound.  I think that "certain something"
might just be the errors they will inevitably have.  Any tuning will have
its share of compromise/errors and are part of a piano and we live with
them.  Maybe this makes them a little more interesting?  When we try to tune
each of the strings of a unison perfectly in tune with each other we
inevitably fail and that's what makes a piano sound like a piano.  I believe
you are using TuneLab?  How does your tuning fork/aural tuning measure up?
Has it made you make a changes in your tuning?


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

>We return to that human quality in the end.

Exactly.  That is where I want to use my human ear, in the end.  Not at the
beginning
where it is wasted but when I have the string close to in tune.  After
tension changes have happened and the string is ready to finish.

>  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..

Jim Coleman Sr. did a class on unisons sometime ago and he tuned the piano
with
I believe perfect 5ths (not sure exactly) but the point is that the entire
class
of piano tuners couldn't tell that it wasn't in equal temperment.  His point
was
the importance of the unison.  The class did perceive, define and judge his
tuning.
What does this mean to human perception?

> 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