Aural versus ETD tuning training

[Richard Brekne]

"David M. Porritt" wrote:
> 
> 
> >Examplavis... And ETD will not insure an acceptable curve of beating
> >thirds or tenths. It may or may not do a good job of it depending on
> the
> >piano, but it will not insure this because it simply has no way of
> >directly doing so. Thats not what its listening for, and there is
> >nothing in its calculated single partial curve that can indirectly
> do
> >this.
> 
> Is an acceptable curve of thirds or tenths THE criteria for a good
> tuning?  What is the criteria of a good tuning?

Well.. Thats the exact question now isnt it ? The ETD has a very
specific definition and as long as the piano aggrees with that as it
were, then all is well by and large. No argument there. But as soon as
you move away from the ETD's definition, well then the ETD isnt nearly
so suited. And there is a whole field of play to move around in out
there that fits this bill. We get past the "pass the test" level of
tuning and enter that area of tuning that is pretty accomplished in
nature and there are lots of different ways of prioritizing things. Some
of these the ear does better, and some the ETD has the edge on. Together
the ETD and the educated ear make a tremendous combination for anyone
who cares to take things that far. 
> 
> The tuneoffs showed that an audience of piano technicians couldn't
> decide which tuning was better by using aural means.  The work was
> done by two highly respected (correction, HIGHLY RESPCETED)
> technicians and the consensus was the results were equal.  To repeat
> what Jim said, why does this matter keep coming up?

Well lets see... the audience was allowed to hear the instruments
played, the ETD tuning was accomplished by a master ETD tuner who is
also a master aural tuner and there was no effort to mask the ear in the
process. And repected or not, however highly, not much has been done
even to this date to learn about the differences between ear tunings and
ETD tunings, except some basic stuff to justify the use of ETD's. And
all in all... the tests were about as objective and enlightening as the
temperment demonstrations I refered to before. No one questions the
degree of respect due those techs who couldnt hear the difference
between a Well tempered piano and an ETD, and no one questions the
degree of respect due the Tuneoff audience either. However, the net
result of such tests is tritely interesting at best. At least in the
sense of what they prove or do not prove. What they SHOULD tell us, is
that we have much more to learn about what tuning a piano is really all
about... if we want to bother going there. Course we could just sit on
our haunches and be satisfied with what we already know. God knows that
what we do now... ETD wise or not... works in enough situations that we
could make that choice easily enough.

Personally, I see no reason why any of this should threaten ETD or Aural
enthusiasts. Heck the whole point is that both the ear and the ETD do
what they do best, better then the other. Together they make a great
team. But only, as with all things, if you use both tools in an educated
manner. 

The matter keeps comming up because both sides keep arguing over a moot
point and fail to see that the differences between ear and ETD tunings
are an asset and not a point of contention. They are certainly real,
worth much more then a dime, and represent a wonderful opportunity to
move the art of tuning further. They do not represent any real reason
for folks to get all hot and bothered and jump all over each other
about.

Cheers

RicB



> 
> dave
> 
> _____________________________
> David M. Porritt
> dporritt@mail.smu.edu
> Meadows School of the Arts
> Southern Methodist University
> Dallas, TX 75275
> _____________________________
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

-- 
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html