So much vitriol and so many snide comments. The discussion has diverged into several different topics but with respect to RPT tuning tests, I won't hesitate to say that I agree with Duane. And I say this as someone with no political agenda. I have taken and passed the RPT test without the benefit of an ETD. The usefulness of aural testing for the temperament and even the octave sections is limited at this point and proves little. The commonly used ETD's have surpassed aural tuning in terms of consistency and accuracy within the temperament octave certainly and arguable in the octave sections as well, at least in my view. The evidence is pretty clear. Given competent and equal lever and pin technique, the ETD user will always score 100% in those sections every time. The aural tuners won't and mostly don't, even those that pass. So what does the RPT test really tell us? It tells us that if we want consistent and accurate results as measured by scores on the RPT test, use an ETD. To me, it's not clear what is being proven by forcing the issue with an aural temperament and octave test. With unisons it's different not only because ETD tuners generally tune unisons by ear, but because there are sections of the piano where measuring unison precision is less reliable with the ETD than with the ears. Stability measures tuning hammer technique and is a separate but valid point of testing. Checking stability, btw, is much easier and more reliable with and ETD. You can't talk yourself into believing what you want to hear. That we are mostly measured as tuners by accuracy and stability of unisons is nothing new. If there is a weakness in the applicant's aural skills with respect to unisons it will be evident and they won't pass. The 21st century has arrived and we embrace the use of technology as a tool and to facilitate our sensory limitations all the time. Why should it be any different with tuning. I say it's time to reconsider the test altogether and whether it's applicable to the way most people work. Bring it up to date. We aren't talking about Strobotuners or Peterson machines anymore. With respect to other comments about other aspects of ETDs. I don't see how anyone can argue about the speed aspect. ETD's are simply faster. Thorough aural checks take time. Sometimes they require two hands. Every time your hand leaves the tuning lever you are taking more time. If you skip the tests and just speed tune I suppose you can stay up with the ETD users but it reminds me of that funny Woody Allen line, "I took an Evelyn Wood speed reading course. I read War and Peace in two hours. It's about Russia". Speed and stress free tuning without compromising accuracy create more consistent tunings from the beginning to the end of the day. For example, today I tuned 6 pianos (more than my usual full day to be sure and not something I do very often). Every piano had a pitch adjustment ranging from about 5 cents to 14 cents. Using a RCT, I set the machine to Smart Tune which is designed as a one pass tuning with pitch correction. A0 to C88 took less 40 minutes average (yes I kept track all day). Since there was a pitch correction involved I reset the machine to Fine Tune afterwards and then went through the piano again checking notes against the calculated Fine Tune mode, listening for clean octaves, rechecking unisons, and see if the final pitch settling was on target. On some pianos I made a few corrections, not many, but a few. The longest I spent total on any piano was 55 minutes, the shortest 47 minutes (tuning that is). I scheduled each appointment 90 minutes apart and stayed on schedule all day without a problem. The last piano I tuned received the same attention to detail as the first piano. I tuned for several decades aurally without the benefit of an ETD. I was very competent and fast with good control. There is no possible way that tuning by ear would have achieved the same result in the same amount of time. Nor would I have dared schedule that many tunings in a day. The ETD allowed me to focus on what I really needed to focus on with reasonably fresh ears (I'm not a pounder btw), and be confident about the quality of what I delivered in spite of the heavy workload. My opinion is that aural tuners tend to underestimate their average time. A pitch correction can go just fine aurally, but sometimes it doesn't and you end up doing a second one, or a correction of the correction. It wastes time and energy and ultimately accuracy or stability of the final product. There's no way that aural tuning can consistently achieve what Smart Tune mode can (or other pitch correction modes on other machines) and come anywhere close to the final result. If you say it can, I think you're not being honest with yourself. Someone mentioned substitutes. When they send someone to substitute for them and they are an ETD tuner how do they know that they will be able to accomplish the tuning, my god, something might happen! Well I've sent aural tuners to sub for me on pianos I tune regularly and my take is different. I usually end up returning the piano to what I wanted after it was "personalized". I haven't found these aural tunings to be any more accurate (usually less). When I send someone to sub for me, I prefer not only that they use and ETD, but preferably the same one that I use. Then I can say to them, please use these settings, if you have to tweak something fine, but when I come back to the piano I won't be reinventing the wheel and the piano will remain more stable (assuming their hammer technique is up to it). So you might say, "but I enjoy tuning aurally, it offers a challenge, a sense of satisfaction of something accomplished". I say bravo, if that's your main goal. For me, I run a business, this is my living and supports my family. My satisfaction comes from efficiency, consistency and timeliness regardless of my workload, how I happen to feeling or how I judge or misjudge the specific requirements of a particular piano and are essential to my own sense of professionalism, satisfaction and a sense of something accomplished. Sure I enjoy tuning. But I enjoy it more when it's efficient, accurate with the least stress and achieves consistent results. With respect to customer perceptions, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I don't believe they want you around for two hours if you can achieve the same result in one. They have lives to lead too. Honestly, I'm surprised at some who have no problem embracing every new idea when it comes to soundboard making, scale design, action technologies, blah blah blah, but when it comes to tuning, ETD's somehow diminish the product. Maybe during the regulation part of the RPT test we should have people do that without the benefit of any measuring devices, just by feel. After all, one day you might forget your ruler! David Love www.davidlovepianos.com -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Encore Pianos Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 12:59 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner) Well, Duane, I can do 3 pitch raises and a fine tuning aurally in just about 2 hours, on the occasional piano that needs that much. About an hour 40 minutes for 2 pr & ft. If the piano is over 50 cents flat, I will usually schedule a second visit, because it will wander. I won't argue that a ETD can calculate a pitch raise and do a more accurate pitch raise than by our aural means, I have done that with the machine. No argument there (no need to either). It's very good, but it is not the Holy Grail. Nothing is. BUT, I say BS to your "MIGHT make some MINOR tweaking", after your MINOR (hmmmm.....) checking. Yes, there are some pianos out there where the pitch drops in like it is going back into a slot, I've tuned some of those both ways. But there are also plenty of pianos where the pitch will wander up or down in ways that are not predictable, and will do so no matter which method is used. I can hear it happen aurally, and quantify it by the machine if I want to. I make several passes before fine tuning, and I also know some good ETD tuners who will make 3 passes on some of these beasts because their ear and the machine tells them that is what it takes to get it right. Sometimes the piano is 10 cents flat and misbehaves as described, sometimes it is 60 cents flat and acting this way. My guess is that you are doing one pass on just about everything, and doing little or no checking. If you don't check it again with the machine, and you don't know what a piano in good tune sounds like, ignorance is bliss. But, as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but Verify." And, ahem, that's why there is an aural part to the tuning test, to help you keep honest with yourself. I challenge you to do a single pass on your next few pianos, then write down the cents deviation for each note in relation to the calculated tuning, and keep those records. You might actually learn something about your tuning that you didn't know. Will Truitt -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Duaine Hechler Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 3:03 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Old can of worms (was Re: tunelab vs verituner) Not to deliberately belabor this point, but answer me this; 99.9% of my tunings involve MAJOR pitch raises. With aural tuning ONLY, how in the "sam hill" can you do a MAJOR pitch raise in less than 2 hours. Now let's see - that involves setting the temperament, PRESUMABLY, at the same time, calculating stretch, tuning each note, tuning the unisons, etc Oh, yeah, do your "precious" aural tuning checks, but, wait, the piano is constantly moving because it was so out-of-tune, but some how you are still supposed to do them, how I will never know. Starting from the middle, tune up and tune down AND with the piano still moving along the way. So now you some sort of BASE tuning, so now you have to go back and "tweak" BUT, again, the piano is still moving, so you have to, maybe, tweak again and again and again, etc. Have I forgotten anything ? Now, with an ETD (like, Cybertuner (because that is what I have)), you capture the "starting" point of the piano with all the A's; IT calculates the proper pitch of the note where it is supposed to be - factoring in, automajically, the stretch and you tune from note 1 to note 88. Now, do some MINOR checking, which you MIGHT need to make some MINOR tweaking. And, now you are DONE. Stepping back out of your CURRENT life and as a NEW tech coming into the business, you would pick the ETD route. So did I, like millions of other techs. So there - "put that in you pipe and smoke it" Duaine On 05/10/2012 07:57 AM, David Renaud wrote: > I did not at all suggest I had an engineering degree, I have a music degree. > > I was addressing the comment previously made by someone else > suggesting that having to take today's tuning Test was like asking to take an engineering exam with only a slide rule and pencil. > > My hope was to point out that the apology is not good because: > > 1)Indeed, you actually can use technology for large parts of the tuning exam. > > 2) The aural part is primary to demonstrate that a candidate actually does know some aural test. > In this interest, The margins of error are very larg, and this part is > not to produce a concert level tuning at all, but a minimal standard. > Most of the people I have seen fail this part knew practically no > aural checks tests whatsoever. Forget executing tests well ,the problem was so many do not have the information at all. It is a test of demonstrating a minimal knowledge of aural tests. > > 3) the exam process does have a written part before qualifying to take > the tuning exam. As you suggest should be, is indeed, Questions Regarding partial, harmonics, and stretch are part of the written exam. > > So my point was only that the analogy with the slide rule is not > valid. And my discussion was intended to point out that a fair > comparison would be an exam where the candidate would be Expected at some point in the exam to demonstrate some minimal manual mental calculations and knowledge without > referring to the computer/devise. In my opinion the aural component of the tuning tests does this minimal > demonstration of aural testing knowledge for it has generous margins > of error, and anyone with basic knowledge and practice of a 3 or 4 > Interval tests can achieve passing at the 80% level. The problem I > have seen so often in the exam room with the aural part is mostly lack of knowledge of any aural tests. It is indeed a demonstration of a minimal standard, not concert tuning. > > I have mentored enough experienced tuners through assimilating > basic aural skills to have an opinion. ALL of them say it opened up a > whole new world to them. All of them appreciated and valued the added > techniques. You do know that none of the examiners get remuneration > for the Hundreds of hours they have spent training for and being in > the exam room? To give that much Free time you have to have a spirit > that really desires to give back. These people want others to succeed, and have put their time and money behind their words giving thousands of dollars worth of time because they do care. One CTE I respect very much asked me once."if we will not preserve Something of the aural tradition, who will? " > There is value there. There are people that care and give > there. The aural part Deserves respect. > > Cheers > Dave Renaud > > -- Duaine Hechler Piano, Player Piano, Pump Organ Tuning, Servicing& Rebuilding Reed Organ Society Member Florissant, MO 63034 (314) 838-5587 dahechler at att.net www.hechlerpianoandorgan.com -- Home& Business user of Linux - 11 years
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC