It seems as though my comments didn't get interspersed. Let me try again.

On Sep 9, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Fred Sturm via Piano Technicians Guild <Mail@ConnectedCommunity.org> wrote:

Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login. Pianotech   Post New Message Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's Reply to Group Reply to Sender Sep 9, 2017 11:09 PM Fred Sturm The aural verification is certainly what makes the test work, in its current form. I am simply arguing against the romanticization of master tunings. They are done by flesh and blood people, and all have warts.  And strengths!     Some of the more or less theoretical things I wrote earlier have to do with the fact that we don't actually have a well defined agreement as to the criteria for a master tuning.  Do we have defined agreement for any tuning? This thread has brought out a major consideration, IMHO. It seems we all develop a theoretical plan of action for every piano we tune, but do we know what the piano wants? Braid White is noted for coming up with a way to create a consistent equal temperament and extend that temperament out to all 88 notes. As you pointed out, Fred, it ends up being a template just like all the current ETD templates. The scientific tools weren't readily avialable to everyday tuners. The aural tuning method worked and still does. Until we have a real standard "tuning" to measure from, all tuning will be theoretical and "fuzzy."  But another way, the criteria are a bit fuzzy and contradictory - they seem to be based on theoretical equal temperament assuming even inharmonicity, and "aural judgment" is to be used to resolve problems. IOW, individual opinion, without actual principles to guide it. Put human variability on top of that, plus normal human and instrument error, and the picture becomes pretty fuzzy, indeed. It would be an excellent idea to take the entire database of master tunings and analyze them by piano model, to see what we could find out. Scary stuff, though. It might raise questions we want to avoid. But there does seem to be some agreement among good aural tuners about how much fuzziness can be tolerated. There are principles (even thirds, tens, seventeeths and quiet 4ths and 5ths, etc.). Those principles guide the master tuning process. My experience has been that master tuning sessions have resulted in good tuning and agreement according to the basic standards and rules behind the test. There is a standard of sorts. And it comes from Braid White's early work. As for Eric's question about standards, I am happy to stick my neck out and say that the tuning templates generated by all the professional ETDs are certainly worthy of being considered standard. There is a wide tolerance of variability, and I think the ETDs cover that range pretty well. (I wish people would stop writing in such a way that they imply that ETDs tune pianos. They do not. They create templates. Humans do the tuning, and it is fussy, precise, skilled work, whether using a template or comparing beat rates and the like.) Is it possible to measure an octave scientifically on a particular piano and determine how much each fifth needs to be narrowed to fit in that octave, taking into account that the imperfections built into the bridge, the bridge pin, the soundboard, inharmonicity, time, etc., etc? And having accomplished that, is it possible to measure and balance fifths, octaves, double octaves, etc., into a esthetically pleasing whole?  In other words, is it possible to let the direct measurements of a particular piano dictate the tuning of each note? I actually know a guy here in Tucson who tries to do that. He doesn't let the template dictate the tuning; he tries to measure and let the piano dictate the tuning. I find it interesting that at this point much of the argument in favor of aural versus ETD assisted tuning tends to skew towards the notion that a degree of inaccuracy is aesthetically more pleasing than accuracy. That argument is, of course, absolutely contrary to the thrust of PTG and its predecessors over the years (beginning with Braid White and the American Guild of Piano Tuners), to try to bring tuning up to the highest possible level of scientific accuracy and precision. The pursuit of the highest degree of accuracy and precision was pretty universal when I entered the field over 35 years ago. One could say that the argument today is that tunings should be somewhat sloppily done. Well, "consciously sloppily done," as in trying to achieve just the right level of imprecision to give the right sound, I suppose. Still, it is ironic. Braid White's formulation set a high standard for accuracy for the day, and it continues to be a high standard,  IMHO. I don't think the comments about shading and cracking unisons can be considered sloppy or less accurate. I think it's an attempt to find out after all these years how to tune a piano. There seems to be some idea that something in our standard is missing. And that something takes us into the realm of how the whole piano works together and how to get a handle on measuring that, aurally and scientifically. Perhaps bringing aural and ETD tuners together to explore this realm will result in a new and higher standard for tuning. It will take into account the fluid nature of the materials that pianos are made of and the fluid nature of inharmonicity as it moves in those few milliseconds after the initial attack.  The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in. ------------------------------ Fred Sturm  University of New Mexico fssturm@unm.edu http://fredsturm.net http://www.artoftuning.com "We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda

------------------------------
Richard West
Oro Valley AZ
520-395-0916
440richard@gmail.com
------------------------------

Richard: Regarding defined agreement.
     These questions can be partially (ha,ha) answered by checking larger contiguous intervals. I've mentioned M6ths & M10ths before. m6ths are also useful but I did not want to hog all the good ones and thought someone else would chime in.  Paul
Original Message:
Sent: 09-11-2017 11:50
From: Richard West
Subject: Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's

It seems as though my comments didn't get interspersed. Let me try again.

On Sep 9, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Fred Sturm via Piano Technicians Guild <Mail@ConnectedCommunity.org> wrote:

Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login. Pianotech   Post New Message Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's Reply to Group Reply to Sender Sep 9, 2017 11:09 PM Fred Sturm The aural verification is certainly what makes the test work, in its current form. I am simply arguing against the romanticization of master tunings. They are done by flesh and blood people, and all have warts.  And strengths!     Some of the more or less theoretical things I wrote earlier have to do with the fact that we don't actually have a well defined agreement as to the criteria for a master tuning.  Do we have defined agreement for any tuning? This thread has brought out a major consideration, IMHO. It seems we all develop a theoretical plan of action for every piano we tune, but do we know what the piano wants? Braid White is noted for coming up with a way to create a consistent equal temperament and extend that temperament out to all 88 notes. As you pointed out, Fred, it ends up being a template just like all the current ETD templates. The scientific tools weren't readily avialable to everyday tuners. The aural tuning method worked and still does. Until we have a real standard "tuning" to measure from, all tuning will be theoretical and "fuzzy."  But another way, the criteria are a bit fuzzy and contradictory - they seem to be based on theoretical equal temperament assuming even inharmonicity, and "aural judgment" is to be used to resolve problems. IOW, individual opinion, without actual principles to guide it. Put human variability on top of that, plus normal human and instrument error, and the picture becomes pretty fuzzy, indeed. It would be an excellent idea to take the entire database of master tunings and analyze them by piano model, to see what we could find out. Scary stuff, though. It might raise questions we want to avoid. But there does seem to be some agreement among good aural tuners about how much fuzziness can be tolerated. There are principles (even thirds, tens, seventeeths and quiet 4ths and 5ths, etc.). Those principles guide the master tuning process. My experience has been that master tuning sessions have resulted in good tuning and agreement according to the basic standards and rules behind the test. There is a standard of sorts. And it comes from Braid White's early work. As for Eric's question about standards, I am happy to stick my neck out and say that the tuning templates generated by all the professional ETDs are certainly worthy of being considered standard. There is a wide tolerance of variability, and I think the ETDs cover that range pretty well. (I wish people would stop writing in such a way that they imply that ETDs tune pianos. They do not. They create templates. Humans do the tuning, and it is fussy, precise, skilled work, whether using a template or comparing beat rates and the like.) Is it possible to measure an octave scientifically on a particular piano and determine how much each fifth needs to be narrowed to fit in that octave, taking into account that the imperfections built into the bridge, the bridge pin, the soundboard, inharmonicity, time, etc., etc? And having accomplished that, is it possible to measure and balance fifths, octaves, double octaves, etc., into a esthetically pleasing whole?  In other words, is it possible to let the direct measurements of a particular piano dictate the tuning of each note? I actually know a guy here in Tucson who tries to do that. He doesn't let the template dictate the tuning; he tries to measure and let the piano dictate the tuning. I find it interesting that at this point much of the argument in favor of aural versus ETD assisted tuning tends to skew towards the notion that a degree of inaccuracy is aesthetically more pleasing than accuracy. That argument is, of course, absolutely contrary to the thrust of PTG and its predecessors over the years (beginning with Braid White and the American Guild of Piano Tuners), to try to bring tuning up to the highest possible level of scientific accuracy and precision. The pursuit of the highest degree of accuracy and precision was pretty universal when I entered the field over 35 years ago. One could say that the argument today is that tunings should be somewhat sloppily done. Well, "consciously sloppily done," as in trying to achieve just the right level of imprecision to give the right sound, I suppose. Still, it is ironic. Braid White's formulation set a high standard for accuracy for the day, and it continues to be a high standard,  IMHO. I don't think the comments about shading and cracking unisons can be considered sloppy or less accurate. I think it's an attempt to find out after all these years how to tune a piano. There seems to be some idea that something in our standard is missing. And that something takes us into the realm of how the whole piano works together and how to get a handle on measuring that, aurally and scientifically. Perhaps bringing aural and ETD tuners together to explore this realm will result in a new and higher standard for tuning. It will take into account the fluid nature of the materials that pianos are made of and the fluid nature of inharmonicity as it moves in those few milliseconds after the initial attack.  The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in. ------------------------------ Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm@unm.edu http://fredsturm.net http://www.artoftuning.com "We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda

------------------------------
Richard West
Oro Valley AZ
520-395-0916
440richard@gmail.com
------------------------------

I had thought that Verituner and Tunic OnlyPure continue to take in information while the piano's being tuned, with the goal of tailoring the tuning curve to that piano. I know that TuneLab is capable of reading as many notes as you want (not just FAC) and once those notes are set, and you've made your adjustments, the only thing that changes is the partials in the bass section. On the fly, it will pick the strongest partial and change the tuning curve to comply with it. I don't know a lot about Accu-Tuner ( I assume the FAC comment was about Accu-Tuner) but I must admit that I marvel at the capability of it to set a tuning curve from just 3 notes. But, it is the granddaddy of ETD's and I know it does a great job!

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 09-11-2017 11:50
From: Richard West
Subject: Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's

It seems as though my comments didn't get interspersed. Let me try again.

On Sep 9, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Fred Sturm via Piano Technicians Guild <Mail@ConnectedCommunity.org> wrote:

Please do not forward this message due to Auto Login. Pianotech   Post New Message Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's Reply to Group Reply to Sender Sep 9, 2017 11:09 PM Fred Sturm The aural verification is certainly what makes the test work, in its current form. I am simply arguing against the romanticization of master tunings. They are done by flesh and blood people, and all have warts.  And strengths!     Some of the more or less theoretical things I wrote earlier have to do with the fact that we don't actually have a well defined agreement as to the criteria for a master tuning.  Do we have defined agreement for any tuning? This thread has brought out a major consideration, IMHO. It seems we all develop a theoretical plan of action for every piano we tune, but do we know what the piano wants? Braid White is noted for coming up with a way to create a consistent equal temperament and extend that temperament out to all 88 notes. As you pointed out, Fred, it ends up being a template just like all the current ETD templates. The scientific tools weren't readily avialable to everyday tuners. The aural tuning method worked and still does. Until we have a real standard "tuning" to measure from, all tuning will be theoretical and "fuzzy."  But another way, the criteria are a bit fuzzy and contradictory - they seem to be based on theoretical equal temperament assuming even inharmonicity, and "aural judgment" is to be used to resolve problems. IOW, individual opinion, without actual principles to guide it. Put human variability on top of that, plus normal human and instrument error, and the picture becomes pretty fuzzy, indeed. It would be an excellent idea to take the entire database of master tunings and analyze them by piano model, to see what we could find out. Scary stuff, though. It might raise questions we want to avoid. But there does seem to be some agreement among good aural tuners about how much fuzziness can be tolerated. There are principles (even thirds, tens, seventeeths and quiet 4ths and 5ths, etc.). Those principles guide the master tuning process. My experience has been that master tuning sessions have resulted in good tuning and agreement according to the basic standards and rules behind the test. There is a standard of sorts. And it comes from Braid White's early work. As for Eric's question about standards, I am happy to stick my neck out and say that the tuning templates generated by all the professional ETDs are certainly worthy of being considered standard. There is a wide tolerance of variability, and I think the ETDs cover that range pretty well. (I wish people would stop writing in such a way that they imply that ETDs tune pianos. They do not. They create templates. Humans do the tuning, and it is fussy, precise, skilled work, whether using a template or comparing beat rates and the like.) Is it possible to measure an octave scientifically on a particular piano and determine how much each fifth needs to be narrowed to fit in that octave, taking into account that the imperfections built into the bridge, the bridge pin, the soundboard, inharmonicity, time, etc., etc? And having accomplished that, is it possible to measure and balance fifths, octaves, double octaves, etc., into a esthetically pleasing whole?  In other words, is it possible to let the direct measurements of a particular piano dictate the tuning of each note? I actually know a guy here in Tucson who tries to do that. He doesn't let the template dictate the tuning; he tries to measure and let the piano dictate the tuning. I find it interesting that at this point much of the argument in favor of aural versus ETD assisted tuning tends to skew towards the notion that a degree of inaccuracy is aesthetically more pleasing than accuracy. That argument is, of course, absolutely contrary to the thrust of PTG and its predecessors over the years (beginning with Braid White and the American Guild of Piano Tuners), to try to bring tuning up to the highest possible level of scientific accuracy and precision. The pursuit of the highest degree of accuracy and precision was pretty universal when I entered the field over 35 years ago. One could say that the argument today is that tunings should be somewhat sloppily done. Well, "consciously sloppily done," as in trying to achieve just the right level of imprecision to give the right sound, I suppose. Still, it is ironic. Braid White's formulation set a high standard for accuracy for the day, and it continues to be a high standard,  IMHO. I don't think the comments about shading and cracking unisons can be considered sloppy or less accurate. I think it's an attempt to find out after all these years how to tune a piano. There seems to be some idea that something in our standard is missing. And that something takes us into the realm of how the whole piano works together and how to get a handle on measuring that, aurally and scientifically. Perhaps bringing aural and ETD tuners together to explore this realm will result in a new and higher standard for tuning. It will take into account the fluid nature of the materials that pianos are made of and the fluid nature of inharmonicity as it moves in those few milliseconds after the initial attack.  The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in. ------------------------------ Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm@unm.edu http://fredsturm.net http://www.artoftuning.com "We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda

------------------------------
Richard West
Oro Valley AZ
520-395-0916
440richard@gmail.com
------------------------------

Original Message------

The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in.

Richard West,  09-11-2017 11:50

I had thought that Verituner and Tunic OnlyPure continue to take in information while the piano's being tuned, with the goal of tailoring the tuning curve to that piano. I know that TuneLab is capable of reading as many notes as you want (not just FAC) and once those notes are set, and you've made your adjustments, the only thing that changes is the partials in the bass section. On the fly, it will pick the strongest partial and change the tuning curve to comply with it. I don't know a lot about Accu-Tuner ( I assume the FAC comment was about Accu-Tuner) but I must admit that I marvel at the capability of it to set a tuning curve from just 3 notes. But, it is the granddaddy of ETD's and I know it does a great job!

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user
------------------------------

Richard - Yes, it wasn't at all my intention to get in to an argument over ETA/ETD features, but it seemed pertinent to the conversation to have somewhat of an understanding of how sophisticated the ETA's are these days. They aren't just a static tuning curve, they're dynamic and they in fact are adjusting to each piano, some of them as we actually tune, not unlike aural tuning. But, I want to be clear, what I'm not saying is that they are better than aural tuning. I'm not going after a comparison but just a better understanding of how ETA's work. And that they all work differently. 

By the way, I don't know what DSP is either. I know on TuneLab the display is artificially slowed down in the upper end of the piano so it's readable. Maybe something to do with that?

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 09-11-2017 15:10
From: Richard West
Subject: Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's

Hi, Scott,

I know nothing about how the various ETDs work. Someone mentioned DSP affects the readouts. I don't know what that means. I've heard the Accutuner is more "scientific." I've also heard that all the other ETDs take an "average" reading of a note. Therefore, it helps to take more that one reading to get a super accurate final reading. Average 3 readings  to get the most accurate reading. I don't want to get into a war of words and features. Suffice it to say that they work well for what we need. 

Also, the tuning test was designed not only to provide a reasonable plus/minus tolerance to make the test fair for the examinee; the tolerance is there for examiners, too. It's not out of the question for two different examiners to interpret the readout differently. And if the reading is off by a mere tenth of a cent, it can lead to e an error. Aural verification should catch those.

Richard

Original Message------

The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in.

Richard West,  09-11-2017 11:50

I had thought that Verituner and Tunic OnlyPure continue to take in information while the piano's being tuned, with the goal of tailoring the tuning curve to that piano. I know that TuneLab is capable of reading as many notes as you want (not just FAC) and once those notes are set, and you've made your adjustments, the only thing that changes is the partials in the bass section. On the fly, it will pick the strongest partial and change the tuning curve to comply with it. I don't know a lot about Accu-Tuner ( I assume the FAC comment was about Accu-Tuner) but I must admit that I marvel at the capability of it to set a tuning curve from just 3 notes. But, it is the granddaddy of ETD's and I know it does a great job!

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user
------------------------------

Scott,

The Verituner's standard procedure for starting a new tuning is to measure inharmonicity for A4 and A3 (which measures 16 partials) and then tune upward by steps from A3 to C8, and then from G#3 down by steps to A0. Using one of the three built-in styles, the Verituner will continue to measure partials for the other notes (A0 through C7) as they are tuned. The sequence is designed to gather inharmonicity information that will benefit the target calculations of the yet untuned notes. When all notes (A0-C7) have been tuned, up to 469 partials can have been measured. 

There are other considerations, but this is the basic idea, as I understand it.

BTW, I DPS refers to a digital signal processor. From Wikipedia:

"The goal of DSPs is usually to measure, filter or compress continuous real-world analog signals. Most general-purposemicroprocessors can also execute digital signal processing algorithms successfully, but dedicated DSPs usually have better power efficiency thus they are more suitable in portable devices such as mobile phones because of powerconsumption constraints.^[3] DSPs often use special memory architectures that are able to fetch multiple data or instructions at the same time."

------------------------------
David Bauguess
Grand Junction CO
970-257-1750
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 09-11-2017 19:42
From: Scott Kerns
Subject: Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's

Richard - Yes, it wasn't at all my intention to get in to an argument over ETA/ETD features, but it seemed pertinent to the conversation to have somewhat of an understanding of how sophisticated the ETA's are these days. They aren't just a static tuning curve, they're dynamic and they in fact are adjusting to each piano, some of them as we actually tune, not unlike aural tuning. But, I want to be clear, what I'm not saying is that they are better than aural tuning. I'm not going after a comparison but just a better understanding of how ETA's work. And that they all work differently.

By the way, I don't know what DSP is either. I know on TuneLab the display is artificially slowed down in the upper end of the piano so it's readable. Maybe something to do with that?

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user

Original Message:
Sent: 09-11-2017 15:10
From: Richard West
Subject: Re: Test Master Tunings and ETD's

Hi, Scott,

I know nothing about how the various ETDs work. Someone mentioned DSP affects the readouts. I don't know what that means. I've heard the Accutuner is more "scientific." I've also heard that all the other ETDs take an "average" reading of a note. Therefore, it helps to take more that one reading to get a super accurate final reading. Average 3 readings  to get the most accurate reading. I don't want to get into a war of words and features. Suffice it to say that they work well for what we need. 

Also, the tuning test was designed not only to provide a reasonable plus/minus tolerance to make the test fair for the examinee; the tolerance is there for examiners, too. It's not out of the question for two different examiners to interpret the readout differently. And if the reading is off by a mere tenth of a cent, it can lead to e an error. Aural verification should catch those.

Richard

Original Message------

The problem with any template is that it never really fits the piano. Taking FAC type measurements and letting the computer algorithm fill in the curve does a pretty good job of tailoring a tuning to a particular instrument. But no two pianos are alike and that's where the problem comes in.

Richard West,  09-11-2017 11:50

I had thought that Verituner and Tunic OnlyPure continue to take in information while the piano's being tuned, with the goal of tailoring the tuning curve to that piano. I know that TuneLab is capable of reading as many notes as you want (not just FAC) and once those notes are set, and you've made your adjustments, the only thing that changes is the partials in the bass section. On the fly, it will pick the strongest partial and change the tuning curve to comply with it. I don't know a lot about Accu-Tuner ( I assume the FAC comment was about Accu-Tuner) but I must admit that I marvel at the capability of it to set a tuning curve from just 3 notes. But, it is the granddaddy of ETD's and I know it does a great job!

------------------------------
"That Tuning Guy"
Scott Kerns
www.thattuningguy.com
Tunic OnlyPure & TuneLab user
------------------------------