Pianotech

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians

We've all heard about the famous Tune-Off between Jim Coleman and Virgil Smith in the seventies. (Please forgive me if I get the peripheral details wrong. I was only in my single digits at the time 😉)

Depending on who you talk to, the results were mixed. Some say Jim Coleman's tuning was better. Some say it was a tie.

It doesn't matter because at the heart of the experiment, the data was flawed.

You see, the procedure that required each technician to tune a piano - Virgil totally be ear, Jim using an ETD, the Accutuner I believe, but again, I could be wrong, and many argue he was using his ear as well - was technically flawed.

It's like a poll that asks if you think the earth is flat. If we were to ask that question at a flat earther's convention, the poll would come back with the majority saying the earth is indeed flat. It doesn't matter what they say because it doesn't change what the truth is. (No flat earthers here I hope 🤞)

The point is, it was all opinion. People subjectively decided which tuning they liked better. For an ETD that should not be good enough. ETD's set pitches objectively, to calculated frequencies, not to subjectively placed pitches it thinks sound good.

But now we have the same technology that created the ETD that allows us to objectively finally answer the question:

Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Check out what I made. This video answers this question and let me know what you think.
Click for Video: Are ETD's Better at Tuning Pianos than the Human Ear?

Also, attend my class on Monday and I'll show you how I beat the ETD!

Register here: FREE Zoom Class for Piano Technicians