Pianotech

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

That's an argument that's often made (language) but I don't really buy it.  It's not like with an ETD we're producing a rough tuning as you might be able to communicate only crudely with rudimentary language skills.  The tunings produced by ETDs are consistently high quality, in fact often better than someone with average or even above average aural skills, and that characterizes many RPTs, all due respect.  Plus, I would argue that most tuners who came from an aural background, like me and many others, don't check each tuning with aural tests in the same way we would if tuning aurally.  Not at all. My second passes are checks for stability and unisons pretty much.  While I did learn aural tuning, I don't use those skills (octaves and temperaments) ever, really.  I may use them to detect if something is out, say the octaves are not clean, but corrections are often run through the ETD to see if the problem is where I set the note or the ETD's poor calculations.  Most often it's me.  Not always, sometimes the octaves might end up a bit wide for my taste, but as I noted, detection of octaves and fifths and fourths, in particular, would be part of the testing protocol.  But the corrections need not rely on aural skills, that can come from direct interval tuning, recalculating the tuning on the ETD, etc. 

Moreover, if you use a device that compensates for pitch changes, as the RCT does, then the octaves as you're tuning don't sound consonant by design, because the machine is compensating for the ultimate shift after you've passed those by. So checking octaves, say, as you go is actually counterproductive.  And, btw, the ear can't really make that compensation accurately and consistently (i.e. overpull percentages).

So again, I think we are not keeping up with the times.  And there will come a time in the not too distant future, and we're already seeing that with RCT AI function, where the subtleties of piano scaling are more and more programmable.  It's not all art, there is a science behind tuning and we will get to a point where the ear won't be able to keep up.  We see that also with the Pianosens product in terms of listening capacity.  

And there's another aspect, why shouldn't hearing impaired people be able to function fully as piano tuners given the current and developing technology without being stigmatized.  Obviously for things like voicing, the technology is not there and may never be.  But for tuning, I don't see why not.  

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

That's an argument that's often made (language) but I don't really buy it.  It's not like with an ETD we're producing a rough tuning as you might be able to communicate only crudely with rudimentary language skills.  The tunings produced by ETDs are consistently high quality, in fact often better than someone with average or even above average aural skills, and that characterizes many RPTs, all due respect.  Plus, I would argue that most tuners who came from an aural background, like me and many others, don't check each tuning with aural tests in the same way we would if tuning aurally.  Not at all. My second passes are checks for stability and unisons pretty much.  While I did learn aural tuning, I don't use those skills (octaves and temperaments) ever, really.  I may use them to detect if something is out, say the octaves are not clean, but corrections are often run through the ETD to see if the problem is where I set the note or the ETD's poor calculations.  Most often it's me.  Not always, sometimes the octaves might end up a bit wide for my taste, but as I noted, detection of octaves and fifths and fourths, in particular, would be part of the testing protocol.  But the corrections need not rely on aural skills, that can come from direct interval tuning, recalculating the tuning on the ETD, etc. 

Moreover, if you use a device that compensates for pitch changes, as the RCT does, then the octaves as you're tuning don't sound consonant by design, because the machine is compensating for the ultimate shift after you've passed those by. So checking octaves, say, as you go is actually counterproductive.  And, btw, the ear can't really make that compensation accurately and consistently (i.e. overpull percentages).

So again, I think we are not keeping up with the times.  And there will come a time in the not too distant future, and we're already seeing that with RCT AI function, where the subtleties of piano scaling are more and more programmable.  It's not all art, there is a science behind tuning and we will get to a point where the ear won't be able to keep up.  We see that also with the Pianosens product in terms of listening capacity.  

And there's another aspect, why shouldn't hearing impaired people be able to function fully as piano tuners given the current and developing technology without being stigmatized.  Obviously for things like voicing, the technology is not there and may never be.  But for tuning, I don't see why not.  

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

That's an argument that's often made (language) but I don't really buy it.  It's not like with an ETD we're producing a rough tuning as you might be able to communicate only crudely with rudimentary language skills.  The tunings produced by ETDs are consistently high quality, in fact often better than someone with average or even above average aural skills, and that characterizes many RPTs, all due respect.  Plus, I would argue that most tuners who came from an aural background, like me and many others, don't check each tuning with aural tests in the same way we would if tuning aurally.  Not at all. My second passes are checks for stability and unisons pretty much.  While I did learn aural tuning, I don't use those skills (octaves and temperaments) ever, really.  I may use them to detect if something is out, say the octaves are not clean, but corrections are often run through the ETD to see if the problem is where I set the note or the ETD's poor calculations.  Most often it's me.  Not always, sometimes the octaves might end up a bit wide for my taste, but as I noted, detection of octaves and fifths and fourths, in particular, would be part of the testing protocol.  But the corrections need not rely on aural skills, that can come from direct interval tuning, recalculating the tuning on the ETD, etc. 

Moreover, if you use a device that compensates for pitch changes, as the RCT does, then the octaves as you're tuning don't sound consonant by design, because the machine is compensating for the ultimate shift after you've passed those by. So checking octaves, say, as you go is actually counterproductive.  And, btw, the ear can't really make that compensation accurately and consistently (i.e. overpull percentages).

So again, I think we are not keeping up with the times.  And there will come a time in the not too distant future, and we're already seeing that with RCT AI function, where the subtleties of piano scaling are more and more programmable.  It's not all art, there is a science behind tuning and we will get to a point where the ear won't be able to keep up.  We see that also with the Pianosens product in terms of listening capacity.  

And there's another aspect, why shouldn't hearing impaired people be able to function fully as piano tuners given the current and developing technology without being stigmatized.  Obviously for things like voicing, the technology is not there and may never be.  But for tuning, I don't see why not.  

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

Replying to a few different posts in one, just so I'm not too spammy...

I strongly agree on ditching the tuning fork test, or at least dramatically lowering its scoring value in the overall exam. As David Love said, it's not like we can't pull up an accurate visual pitch fork on our smartphone anyway -- so at best it's an artificial hurdle to prove one has acquired a certain degree of listening skill.  BUT it's not even that much of a hurdle anymore: there are some clever tricks that folks have found (nothing wrong with that!) for tuning A4 to an electronic pitch source very accurately and easily*...  Once you know how to do it, I think passing Part 1 is significantly easier than it used to be, so if anything it's acting as a source of nearly-free points for those in the know.

I also agree about using aural checks differently once I have an ETD available.  In practice I end up focusing a lot more on listening for smooth progressions of continuous beat rates (for M3's, M6's, M10's) and interval sound/cleanliness (for octaves, 5ths, etc..), rather than using aural checks to puzzle out where errors lie in my temperament, and how they may have compounded.  Unfortunately it's impossible for me to say how my ability would be affected, if I had never spent the time learning to do the temperament checks in the first place.

However, those aural temperament skills are certainly still useful for quickly finding and fixing the worst couple notes on a piano!  ETD's kinda impose a time overhead at the beginning -- you have to at least figure out where the piano is at and set an offset, before you can rely on what the ETD is telling you about any given note...

To Peter's point about using it or losing it, I'll confess that does happen to me.  Usually if I can't figure out what's up with a couple simple aural checks, I'll get the ETD back out.  I'm not terribly proud of that.  But, when it comes down to it, I do have to face the fact that even at my best, an ETD will typically beat me at setting as even a temperament as possible...

So I guess if I look at my day-in day-out life as a technician, my most heavily used tuning skills are, in order:

1. Stability and aural unisons (basically tied)
2. Listening to slow beating intervals for evenness and cleanliness, especially Octaves, P5s and P12s
3. Listening to rapid beating intervals for smooth progression

Aural temperament is a distant 4th (other than smoothing out the above), and setting A440 by ear I literally never do anymore.

Is it like this for most of you as well?  If so maybe this points to a need to weight the exam scoring differently to reflect how we really operate nowadays.  IOW let the more "exotic" skills like aural temperaments be the bar that someone has to pass to get to CTE rather than being a basic requirement for a competent technician.

*I am probably missing some details, but it's something along the lines of tuning the 3rd partial of A4 to beat 3-4bps sharp of the electronic tone.  I was pretty shocked at how easy it was when somebody showed me.

That's an argument that's often made (language) but I don't really buy it.  It's not like with an ETD we're producing a rough tuning as you might be able to communicate only crudely with rudimentary language skills.  The tunings produced by ETDs are consistently high quality, in fact often better than someone with average or even above average aural skills, and that characterizes many RPTs, all due respect.  Plus, I would argue that most tuners who came from an aural background, like me and many others, don't check each tuning with aural tests in the same way we would if tuning aurally.  Not at all. My second passes are checks for stability and unisons pretty much.  While I did learn aural tuning, I don't use those skills (octaves and temperaments) ever, really.  I may use them to detect if something is out, say the octaves are not clean, but corrections are often run through the ETD to see if the problem is where I set the note or the ETD's poor calculations.  Most often it's me.  Not always, sometimes the octaves might end up a bit wide for my taste, but as I noted, detection of octaves and fifths and fourths, in particular, would be part of the testing protocol.  But the corrections need not rely on aural skills, that can come from direct interval tuning, recalculating the tuning on the ETD, etc. 

Moreover, if you use a device that compensates for pitch changes, as the RCT does, then the octaves as you're tuning don't sound consonant by design, because the machine is compensating for the ultimate shift after you've passed those by. So checking octaves, say, as you go is actually counterproductive.  And, btw, the ear can't really make that compensation accurately and consistently (i.e. overpull percentages).

So again, I think we are not keeping up with the times.  And there will come a time in the not too distant future, and we're already seeing that with RCT AI function, where the subtleties of piano scaling are more and more programmable.  It's not all art, there is a science behind tuning and we will get to a point where the ear won't be able to keep up.  We see that also with the Pianosens product in terms of listening capacity.  

And there's another aspect, why shouldn't hearing impaired people be able to function fully as piano tuners given the current and developing technology without being stigmatized.  Obviously for things like voicing, the technology is not there and may never be.  But for tuning, I don't see why not.  

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

Replying to a few different posts in one, just so I'm not too spammy...

I strongly agree on ditching the tuning fork test, or at least dramatically lowering its scoring value in the overall exam. As David Love said, it's not like we can't pull up an accurate visual pitch fork on our smartphone anyway -- so at best it's an artificial hurdle to prove one has acquired a certain degree of listening skill.  BUT it's not even that much of a hurdle anymore: there are some clever tricks that folks have found (nothing wrong with that!) for tuning A4 to an electronic pitch source very accurately and easily*...  Once you know how to do it, I think passing Part 1 is significantly easier than it used to be, so if anything it's acting as a source of nearly-free points for those in the know.

I also agree about using aural checks differently once I have an ETD available.  In practice I end up focusing a lot more on listening for smooth progressions of continuous beat rates (for M3's, M6's, M10's) and interval sound/cleanliness (for octaves, 5ths, etc..), rather than using aural checks to puzzle out where errors lie in my temperament, and how they may have compounded.  Unfortunately it's impossible for me to say how my ability would be affected, if I had never spent the time learning to do the temperament checks in the first place.

However, those aural temperament skills are certainly still useful for quickly finding and fixing the worst couple notes on a piano!  ETD's kinda impose a time overhead at the beginning -- you have to at least figure out where the piano is at and set an offset, before you can rely on what the ETD is telling you about any given note...

To Peter's point about using it or losing it, I'll confess that does happen to me.  Usually if I can't figure out what's up with a couple simple aural checks, I'll get the ETD back out.  I'm not terribly proud of that.  But, when it comes down to it, I do have to face the fact that even at my best, an ETD will typically beat me at setting as even a temperament as possible...

So I guess if I look at my day-in day-out life as a technician, my most heavily used tuning skills are, in order:

1. Stability and aural unisons (basically tied)
2. Listening to slow beating intervals for evenness and cleanliness, especially Octaves, P5s and P12s
3. Listening to rapid beating intervals for smooth progression

Aural temperament is a distant 4th (other than smoothing out the above), and setting A440 by ear I literally never do anymore.

Is it like this for most of you as well?  If so maybe this points to a need to weight the exam scoring differently to reflect how we really operate nowadays.  IOW let the more "exotic" skills like aural temperaments be the bar that someone has to pass to get to CTE rather than being a basic requirement for a competent technician.

*I am probably missing some details, but it's something along the lines of tuning the 3rd partial of A4 to beat 3-4bps sharp of the electronic tone.  I was pretty shocked at how easy it was when somebody showed me.

That's an argument that's often made (language) but I don't really buy it.  It's not like with an ETD we're producing a rough tuning as you might be able to communicate only crudely with rudimentary language skills.  The tunings produced by ETDs are consistently high quality, in fact often better than someone with average or even above average aural skills, and that characterizes many RPTs, all due respect.  Plus, I would argue that most tuners who came from an aural background, like me and many others, don't check each tuning with aural tests in the same way we would if tuning aurally.  Not at all. My second passes are checks for stability and unisons pretty much.  While I did learn aural tuning, I don't use those skills (octaves and temperaments) ever, really.  I may use them to detect if something is out, say the octaves are not clean, but corrections are often run through the ETD to see if the problem is where I set the note or the ETD's poor calculations.  Most often it's me.  Not always, sometimes the octaves might end up a bit wide for my taste, but as I noted, detection of octaves and fifths and fourths, in particular, would be part of the testing protocol.  But the corrections need not rely on aural skills, that can come from direct interval tuning, recalculating the tuning on the ETD, etc. 

Moreover, if you use a device that compensates for pitch changes, as the RCT does, then the octaves as you're tuning don't sound consonant by design, because the machine is compensating for the ultimate shift after you've passed those by. So checking octaves, say, as you go is actually counterproductive.  And, btw, the ear can't really make that compensation accurately and consistently (i.e. overpull percentages).

So again, I think we are not keeping up with the times.  And there will come a time in the not too distant future, and we're already seeing that with RCT AI function, where the subtleties of piano scaling are more and more programmable.  It's not all art, there is a science behind tuning and we will get to a point where the ear won't be able to keep up.  We see that also with the Pianosens product in terms of listening capacity.  

And there's another aspect, why shouldn't hearing impaired people be able to function fully as piano tuners given the current and developing technology without being stigmatized.  Obviously for things like voicing, the technology is not there and may never be.  But for tuning, I don't see why not.  

David,

I am "largely" in agreement with you. One consistent observation  I have made over the years though is that once a "learner" gets a taste of the ETD, if he/she is not forcefully restricted from it and required to LEARN the analog/aural processes, it's very much like taking an addictive drug...it's REALLY DIFFICULT to shake it and buckle down to doing the hard work. It's often even difficult for them to understand WHY they should. OTOH an ETD used wisely and sparingly can (I believe) accelerate the learning process. But that "bottle of pills" is just an arms length away and resisting the temptation to imbibe is unbelievably hard for many. It takes tremendous self control and determination to do it. 

I have often likened it to a person emigrating to a new country with a new and unfamiliar language. Some in this situation (actually many) learn just barely enough of the new language to "get by" so they can function in the new society, but then they stop learning the language at that point because they have their "support" group around them that speak their native language and so they have no "need" to progress further. A small minority though recognize that if they really want to integrate and progress in the new society they need to really LEARN how to speak and think in the new language, even to the point of mastering the new accent and eliminating all traces of their native accent. It's a difference in mindset. 

Like everything else digital, all effort (by designers) is to make unnecessary to think and make decisions. The software is designed to replace the  software between our ears. (Back to "use it or lose it"). But the ETD is a great TOOL to have in the pocket when needed.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

BTW I meant to add that for learning stability I think an ETD is an essential tool. 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

Tuning aurally in analog fashion (i.e., comparing interval beats and adjusting accordingly to achieve the desired result) is an absolute whole body experience. Your entire being is into it (if you're good at it). With the exception of "untuneables" there is no comparison in the digital world. If it's a struggle (and for some it definitely IS a struggle) then there is no "experience" involved...it's a drudgery, and so the digital "brain" makes all the difference. I get that. What purely digital tuners don't get, is the "world" of unheard partials dancing around in all these intervals, and taming them into a musically satisfying arrangement. It's almost  like being in a different level of consciousness involving everything I've got. When I tune with an app, it just ain't the same. If you think I'm in outer space...okay with me.

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

BTW I meant to add that for learning stability I think an ETD is an essential tool. 

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished it you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things: stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

All good thoughts except having an ETD test on a shit piano.  Don't see the benefit in that.  Poor or dirty sounding pianos produce poor detection whether it's ears or microphones.  I don't see any real reason to handicap someone or make them walk through fire.  Aural tuners often produce subpar tunings on subpar pianos for no fault of their own, should we have a qualifier that aural tuners can't tune pianos that are in poor condition?  I do agree that a more rigorous technical test might make sense.  But even people who get an MD or a JD after their name are not yet ready to "practice" their craft without an internship, or on the job training.  Are we a more demanding craft?  I don't think so.  

I also don't agree with two different levels of credential either.  People have different ways of working, that should be accepted, not stigmatized.  The proposal for the ETD tuner still could have a rigid aural component in the form of unisons plus, as I mentioned, an identification part that requires aural acuity and a knowledge of interval testing.

With respect to Robert Scott's comments the "right" to use RPT, same argument.  The RPT testers, even if the tuning part is given using an ETD, aren't necessarily minimally qualified.  An RPT having taken and aural test doesn't mean you aren't still "minimally qualified".  Moreover, I see people designing and building soundboards and installing actions that never took a test and that I would consider "minimally qualified".  Are we really concerned with the fact that someone used an ETD to set a temperament if the tuning comes out well, the unisons are tight and the tuning is stable?  

Let's not get too full of ourselves.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 22:20
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

> having an ETD test on a shit piano.

David - That's not at all what I meant. I was thinking that a person taking the test aurally has different goals than a person taking the test with an ETD. Aurally, that person has to demonstrate that they actually know what they're doing. A person taking the test using an ETD only needs to prove that they can read a display and follow directions. I was just thinking that there is really no need to prep an A class grand for a newbie ETD tuner when the objectives are different than for an aural test. If the test taker does not pass then what that person needs to learn to pass it the second time around will be different for an aural tuner than what it will be for an ETD tuner. Of course I am making the unreasonable assumption that the objective of someone taking the test using an ETD is doing so in order to avoid having to learn all the stuff an aural tuner has to master. Out in the field many of us can tune aurally, and passed the tuning exam aurally, but choose to take advantage of ETD's because they assist us in our decision making. We are using the ETD differently than someone who has never learned the aural methods and is relying solely on their ETD to make the tuning correct. The aural exam needs to be different than the ETD exam because, with the exception of unisons and stability, I think they need to test for, and prove different things. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 23:55
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

All good thoughts except having an ETD test on a shit piano.  Don't see the benefit in that.  Poor or dirty sounding pianos produce poor detection whether it's ears or microphones.  I don't see any real reason to handicap someone or make them walk through fire.  Aural tuners often produce subpar tunings on subpar pianos for no fault of their own, should we have a qualifier that aural tuners can't tune pianos that are in poor condition?  I do agree that a more rigorous technical test might make sense.  But even people who get an MD or a JD after their name are not yet ready to "practice" their craft without an internship, or on the job training.  Are we a more demanding craft?  I don't think so.  

I also don't agree with two different levels of credential either.  People have different ways of working, that should be accepted, not stigmatized.  The proposal for the ETD tuner still could have a rigid aural component in the form of unisons plus, as I mentioned, an identification part that requires aural acuity and a knowledge of interval testing.

With respect to Robert Scott's comments the "right" to use RPT, same argument.  The RPT testers, even if the tuning part is given using an ETD, aren't necessarily minimally qualified.  An RPT having taken and aural test doesn't mean you aren't still "minimally qualified".  Moreover, I see people designing and building soundboards and installing actions that never took a test and that I would consider "minimally qualified".  Are we really concerned with the fact that someone used an ETD to set a temperament if the tuning comes out well, the unisons are tight and the tuning is stable?  

Let's not get too full of ourselves.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 22:20
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

I think your comments denigrate the ETD user when you suggest all they need to do is read a "read a display and follows directions".  Are you suggesting that someone who has demonstrated aural skills by passing the RPT test but chooses to use an ETD is just reading a dial and following directions and is no better than a newbie?  I know an awful lot of people in that camp, including me, Carl Lieberman, Fred Sturm and a host of other highly skilled individuals. In fact, Fred, one of the top people in our industry, has just told us in another thread that he now tunes everything, including unisons, with an ETD, and perhaps the new Pianosens device,  presumably because he finds it does a better job!  

I have suggested that people pass an aural skills test and it could be as rigorous as one deems necessary, and certainly would include detailed attention to unisons and stability, perhaps even more rigorous than it currently is.  I also said it could include a hearing acuity test to identify certain intervals or even demonstrate (rather than just answer a few multiple choice questions ) various aural checks for different intervals. I just think that so much weight on tuning a temperament and the bearing octaves of the whole piano with appropriate stretch, by ear when current ETDs generally do i just as well (or better than a modestly skilled person who might pass the test) and certainly faster and with more consistency is desperately clinging to the past. In fact, why aren't the use of ETDs part of the test?  Since such a large percentage of people end up using them, shouldn't we test competence there? Or is it an admission that people are afraid of?  

It should not be lost on any of us that the current test does not even address voicing, action analysis and rebuilding or any belly work yet these procedures are practiced routinely by RPTs and non RPTs alike. And we're worried about someone taking an RPT tuning test with a sophisticated tuning device that they are likely to end up using anyway and never look back?  Doesn't make much sense to me. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-06-2024 12:51
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

> having an ETD test on a shit piano.

David - That's not at all what I meant. I was thinking that a person taking the test aurally has different goals than a person taking the test with an ETD. Aurally, that person has to demonstrate that they actually know what they're doing. A person taking the test using an ETD only needs to prove that they can read a display and follow directions. I was just thinking that there is really no need to prep an A class grand for a newbie ETD tuner when the objectives are different than for an aural test. If the test taker does not pass then what that person needs to learn to pass it the second time around will be different for an aural tuner than what it will be for an ETD tuner. Of course I am making the unreasonable assumption that the objective of someone taking the test using an ETD is doing so in order to avoid having to learn all the stuff an aural tuner has to master. Out in the field many of us can tune aurally, and passed the tuning exam aurally, but choose to take advantage of ETD's because they assist us in our decision making. We are using the ETD differently than someone who has never learned the aural methods and is relying solely on their ETD to make the tuning correct. The aural exam needs to be different than the ETD exam because, with the exception of unisons and stability, I think they need to test for, and prove different things. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 23:55
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

All good thoughts except having an ETD test on a shit piano.  Don't see the benefit in that.  Poor or dirty sounding pianos produce poor detection whether it's ears or microphones.  I don't see any real reason to handicap someone or make them walk through fire.  Aural tuners often produce subpar tunings on subpar pianos for no fault of their own, should we have a qualifier that aural tuners can't tune pianos that are in poor condition?  I do agree that a more rigorous technical test might make sense.  But even people who get an MD or a JD after their name are not yet ready to "practice" their craft without an internship, or on the job training.  Are we a more demanding craft?  I don't think so.  

I also don't agree with two different levels of credential either.  People have different ways of working, that should be accepted, not stigmatized.  The proposal for the ETD tuner still could have a rigid aural component in the form of unisons plus, as I mentioned, an identification part that requires aural acuity and a knowledge of interval testing.

With respect to Robert Scott's comments the "right" to use RPT, same argument.  The RPT testers, even if the tuning part is given using an ETD, aren't necessarily minimally qualified.  An RPT having taken and aural test doesn't mean you aren't still "minimally qualified".  Moreover, I see people designing and building soundboards and installing actions that never took a test and that I would consider "minimally qualified".  Are we really concerned with the fact that someone used an ETD to set a temperament if the tuning comes out well, the unisons are tight and the tuning is stable?  

Let's not get too full of ourselves.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 22:20
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

I think your comments denigrate the ETD user when you suggest all they need to do is read a "read a display and follows directions".  Are you suggesting that someone who has demonstrated aural skills by passing the RPT test but chooses to use an ETD is just reading a dial and following directions and is no better than a newbie?  I know an awful lot of people in that camp, including me, Carl Lieberman, Fred Sturm and a host of other highly skilled individuals. In fact, Fred, one of the top people in our industry, has just told us in another thread that he now tunes everything, including unisons, with an ETD, and perhaps the new Pianosens device,  presumably because he finds it does a better job!  

I have suggested that people pass an aural skills test and it could be as rigorous as one deems necessary, and certainly would include detailed attention to unisons and stability, perhaps even more rigorous than it currently is.  I also said it could include a hearing acuity test to identify certain intervals or even demonstrate (rather than just answer a few multiple choice questions ) various aural checks for different intervals. I just think that so much weight on tuning a temperament and the bearing octaves of the whole piano with appropriate stretch, by ear when current ETDs generally do i just as well (or better than a modestly skilled person who might pass the test) and certainly faster and with more consistency is desperately clinging to the past. In fact, why aren't the use of ETDs part of the test?  Since such a large percentage of people end up using them, shouldn't we test competence there? Or is it an admission that people are afraid of?  

It should not be lost on any of us that the current test does not even address voicing, action analysis and rebuilding or any belly work yet these procedures are practiced routinely by RPTs and non RPTs alike. And we're worried about someone taking an RPT tuning test with a sophisticated tuning device that they are likely to end up using anyway and never look back?  Doesn't make much sense to me. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-06-2024 12:51
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

> having an ETD test on a shit piano.

David - That's not at all what I meant. I was thinking that a person taking the test aurally has different goals than a person taking the test with an ETD. Aurally, that person has to demonstrate that they actually know what they're doing. A person taking the test using an ETD only needs to prove that they can read a display and follow directions. I was just thinking that there is really no need to prep an A class grand for a newbie ETD tuner when the objectives are different than for an aural test. If the test taker does not pass then what that person needs to learn to pass it the second time around will be different for an aural tuner than what it will be for an ETD tuner. Of course I am making the unreasonable assumption that the objective of someone taking the test using an ETD is doing so in order to avoid having to learn all the stuff an aural tuner has to master. Out in the field many of us can tune aurally, and passed the tuning exam aurally, but choose to take advantage of ETD's because they assist us in our decision making. We are using the ETD differently than someone who has never learned the aural methods and is relying solely on their ETD to make the tuning correct. The aural exam needs to be different than the ETD exam because, with the exception of unisons and stability, I think they need to test for, and prove different things. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 23:55
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

All good thoughts except having an ETD test on a shit piano.  Don't see the benefit in that.  Poor or dirty sounding pianos produce poor detection whether it's ears or microphones.  I don't see any real reason to handicap someone or make them walk through fire.  Aural tuners often produce subpar tunings on subpar pianos for no fault of their own, should we have a qualifier that aural tuners can't tune pianos that are in poor condition?  I do agree that a more rigorous technical test might make sense.  But even people who get an MD or a JD after their name are not yet ready to "practice" their craft without an internship, or on the job training.  Are we a more demanding craft?  I don't think so.  

I also don't agree with two different levels of credential either.  People have different ways of working, that should be accepted, not stigmatized.  The proposal for the ETD tuner still could have a rigid aural component in the form of unisons plus, as I mentioned, an identification part that requires aural acuity and a knowledge of interval testing.

With respect to Robert Scott's comments the "right" to use RPT, same argument.  The RPT testers, even if the tuning part is given using an ETD, aren't necessarily minimally qualified.  An RPT having taken and aural test doesn't mean you aren't still "minimally qualified".  Moreover, I see people designing and building soundboards and installing actions that never took a test and that I would consider "minimally qualified".  Are we really concerned with the fact that someone used an ETD to set a temperament if the tuning comes out well, the unisons are tight and the tuning is stable?  

Let's not get too full of ourselves.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 22:20
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

> I think your comments denigrate the ETD user when you suggest all they need to do is read a "read a display and follows directions". 

David --

Again, that's not at all what I'm saying. I, too, passed my tuning exam aurally. And I, too, use an ETD in my daily routines. And because of my aural skills, my ETD acts as a useful tool that I use to assist me in tuning. It does not dictate my tuning. But, I don't want to turn this into an argument of semantics so won't contribute further to this topic. 

I think your comments denigrate the ETD user when you suggest all they need to do is read a "read a display and follows directions".  Are you suggesting that someone who has demonstrated aural skills by passing the RPT test but chooses to use an ETD is just reading a dial and following directions and is no better than a newbie?  I know an awful lot of people in that camp, including me, Carl Lieberman, Fred Sturm and a host of other highly skilled individuals. In fact, Fred, one of the top people in our industry, has just told us in another thread that he now tunes everything, including unisons, with an ETD, and perhaps the new Pianosens device,  presumably because he finds it does a better job!  

I have suggested that people pass an aural skills test and it could be as rigorous as one deems necessary, and certainly would include detailed attention to unisons and stability, perhaps even more rigorous than it currently is.  I also said it could include a hearing acuity test to identify certain intervals or even demonstrate (rather than just answer a few multiple choice questions ) various aural checks for different intervals. I just think that so much weight on tuning a temperament and the bearing octaves of the whole piano with appropriate stretch, by ear when current ETDs generally do i just as well (or better than a modestly skilled person who might pass the test) and certainly faster and with more consistency is desperately clinging to the past. In fact, why aren't the use of ETDs part of the test?  Since such a large percentage of people end up using them, shouldn't we test competence there? Or is it an admission that people are afraid of?  

It should not be lost on any of us that the current test does not even address voicing, action analysis and rebuilding or any belly work yet these procedures are practiced routinely by RPTs and non RPTs alike. And we're worried about someone taking an RPT tuning test with a sophisticated tuning device that they are likely to end up using anyway and never look back?  Doesn't make much sense to me. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-06-2024 12:51
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

> having an ETD test on a shit piano.

David - That's not at all what I meant. I was thinking that a person taking the test aurally has different goals than a person taking the test with an ETD. Aurally, that person has to demonstrate that they actually know what they're doing. A person taking the test using an ETD only needs to prove that they can read a display and follow directions. I was just thinking that there is really no need to prep an A class grand for a newbie ETD tuner when the objectives are different than for an aural test. If the test taker does not pass then what that person needs to learn to pass it the second time around will be different for an aural tuner than what it will be for an ETD tuner. Of course I am making the unreasonable assumption that the objective of someone taking the test using an ETD is doing so in order to avoid having to learn all the stuff an aural tuner has to master. Out in the field many of us can tune aurally, and passed the tuning exam aurally, but choose to take advantage of ETD's because they assist us in our decision making. We are using the ETD differently than someone who has never learned the aural methods and is relying solely on their ETD to make the tuning correct. The aural exam needs to be different than the ETD exam because, with the exception of unisons and stability, I think they need to test for, and prove different things. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 23:55
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

All good thoughts except having an ETD test on a shit piano.  Don't see the benefit in that.  Poor or dirty sounding pianos produce poor detection whether it's ears or microphones.  I don't see any real reason to handicap someone or make them walk through fire.  Aural tuners often produce subpar tunings on subpar pianos for no fault of their own, should we have a qualifier that aural tuners can't tune pianos that are in poor condition?  I do agree that a more rigorous technical test might make sense.  But even people who get an MD or a JD after their name are not yet ready to "practice" their craft without an internship, or on the job training.  Are we a more demanding craft?  I don't think so.  

I also don't agree with two different levels of credential either.  People have different ways of working, that should be accepted, not stigmatized.  The proposal for the ETD tuner still could have a rigid aural component in the form of unisons plus, as I mentioned, an identification part that requires aural acuity and a knowledge of interval testing.

With respect to Robert Scott's comments the "right" to use RPT, same argument.  The RPT testers, even if the tuning part is given using an ETD, aren't necessarily minimally qualified.  An RPT having taken and aural test doesn't mean you aren't still "minimally qualified".  Moreover, I see people designing and building soundboards and installing actions that never took a test and that I would consider "minimally qualified".  Are we really concerned with the fact that someone used an ETD to set a temperament if the tuning comes out well, the unisons are tight and the tuning is stable?  

Let's not get too full of ourselves.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 22:20
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 19:30
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 18:50
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/5/2024 5:48:00 PM
From: Tim Foster
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 09-05-2024 07:55
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 19:32
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 5:56:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: RPT tuning test protocols

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

This subject comes up about once a year. The argument goes on and nobody ever comes up with a solution. But it is kept alive, which I think is good.

I like the idea of separate aural and ETD certificates. Even if it means nothing to our client base. Technology being what it is, being able to tune aurally has almost reached the point that it doesn't matter any more beyond personal achievement and satisfaction. 

Half a lifetime ago I was a recording engineer. Back in the analogue days of 2" 24 track tape. I also did a lot of vinyl mastering. The rules were different then. People didn't have home studios and had to book time in "real" studios to record their projects. To become an engineer and work in those studios you had to know some basic audio ideas, like mic placement, what does in and out of phase mean, how to align a tape machine, how to edit tape, what does an acoustical instrument actually sound like? On top of that you had to know how the console worked and how to use the outboard equipment. Analogue recording in the studio days was a complicated process, and it could take several years of in-studio apprenticeship, (seconding), to learn. 

But then came technology. Digital changed the way recording was done. And as technology leapt on this new market, the equipment became cheaper and cheaper and incredibly versatile. Nowadays, anyone and everyone can afford to set up a workable home studio. Billie Eilish is a great example of what can be done with a couple of available mic's and a Macbook Pro in a bedroom. 

Piano tuning is quickly approaching the same situation. Software and hardware are now available to anyone who wants to be a piano tuner. They usually approach it thinking how hard could it be? The availability of ETD's has made it not hard at all. 

When I took my tuning exam I did it aurally because of my background in analogue recording. I had spent too many years depending on my ears to evaluate what I'm listening to only to prove that I could tune a piano with an ETD. I still think that aural tuning techniques are an important aspect of what we do. But I don't think that it is any longer a necessity. ETD's just are too good at filling in the blanks not to take advantage of them. And I do, with the exception of unisons. 

The tuning exams, as I understand them, are more about control than precision. Yes, you have to get within so many cents of perfect in order to pass, but passing because you stayed within those limits doesn't make you a good tuner. Aurally passing the exam is much harder than taking the exam with an ETD. And rightfully so. And I believe that a tuner that knows how to listen is not necessarily a better tuner than one that is strictly ETD, but a tuner with aural skills is much better at understanding the effects of what can be gotten away with. However, that means little to the home customer as long as you leave the piano in a better state of tuning than it was when you arrived. 

I frequently think that a lot of the PTG hoopla about piano tuning is aimed at getting potential techs to aim for the highest level. Concert and studio work. Not a bad thing. The way the tuning exams are given certainly aim in that direction in that they usually require a good quality grand piano and three CTE techs to administer. Plus tedious prep in documenting what all three techs accept as a "perfect" tuning on that given piano, on that day. Yet the examinee is, nevertheless, being given a test that can be passed with less than a perfect score. Or even an acceptable tuning for that matter. 

Technology is now so in control of our lives, including piano tuning, that there is no escaping how it affects the work we do. For many, an ETD can be a path to a successful career. For some older techs, and those with a lot of pride, ETD's are simply an irritation. Yes. Let's have different tests for aural and ETD tuning techs. The aural tech can still take the test as currently defined. The ETD tech, on the other hand, should be given an older upright that hasn't been tuned in a while, in other words not necessarily prepped for an exam but still in need of a single pass tuning. Give the ETD tech two hours to tune the piano to the best of his ability and then compare the results, electronically, comparing the reading from both the examinee's device and one used by the examiners. See how close the examinee gets to whatever the requirements for passing dictate. How close is A4? How close are his unisons? How stable are his unisons? If the examinee is tuning solely on what the ETD is telling him, none of this will likely be very good. The person still needs some work. Otherwise, bravo.

Today, in my opinion, the tuning exam, while still important as a qualifier for becoming an RPT, has become far less important than the tech exam. While anyone with a little experience can potentially pass the tuning exam using an ETD, the real field test comes the first time that person needs to perform a repair. Technology is not going to help us do repairs as easily as an ETD can hand-hold us through a tuning. We still need to know how to splice a broken wire, fix a pedal or broken hammer shank. Voicing? Regulation? Not ETD jobs, but very important to being an acceptable piano tech. 

Let's consider two entirely separate exams for tuning. One for aural and  one for ETD and give them different qualifying titles. RPT-A and RPT-E, for example. 

Personally, my biggest complaint about today's ETD's is the fact that I have to run them on my phone. To the customer it looks like I've simply downloaded an app available to everyone and hung up a shingle. Without a dedicated device to run the app I feel like I'm somehow cheating. Like I haven't invested enough in the technology I'm using to actually be good at what I do. Yes, I will eventually have to learn to simply get over that triviality. 

Discussed this yesterday with a CTE and he said it's getting harder to find techs with aural/analog chops anymore to even give the exam. That's sad. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Hi all,

I love this discussion! A few thoughts:

1. I mostly tune by ETD, but tune the bass mostly aurally. I would really hate to see the aural temperament portion go away or become optional on the exam, while at the same time I realize in the "real world" it's not always practical. For myself, learning how to set an aural temperament significantly helped me understand how a temperament works in the first place and it also helped me develop my hearing/listening skills. It's practical when "touching" up a tuning, assessing if a section or the entire piano really "needs" a thorough tuning, etc. I had a customer the other day think that a M6th (B5-G#6) was "too vibrant," the first time I ever had a complaint like this. I ran aural tests, told her it was where I wanted it, but slightly lowered G#6 and she was very happy. I showed her that the G#5-G#6 octave was a little "noisier" than I liked, but she said that didn't bother her at all.
2. I know it's not a new idea, but it seems that the PTG could make an accommodation to a growing ETD usage by having another title other than RPT. I envision it as having all the components of the RPT exams but the entire tuning portion can be done with an ETD. If those who have this title later want to "upgrade" to RPT, they would take parts I and II of the tuning exam completely aurally.
3. David Pinnegar, you've mentioned a number of times that your tuning would not pass the tuning exam. As you know, I mostly tune unequal temperaments and agree with you that they are far more accommodating to music making (yes, a completely subjective opinion). However, from all the research I've done and temperaments I've tuned, ET is one of the most difficult temperaments to master aurally. I really believe that having ET on the exam is very important because it demonstrates the technician's ability to hear beat rates and tune one of the most difficult temperaments-- basically it is a wonderful demonstration of both one's ability to hear and their understanding of intervalic relationships.

Thanks for a great discussion!

Actually the exam, as it is, is extremely objective. No attempt is made to create "the finest" tuning for that piano, clear instructions are given to the applicant as to how or how not to tune it, aural verification is a built in fail-safe for accumulated errors from electronic reading of values (as well as an opportunity to display ones clear knowledge of aural/analog verification methodology [or the lack of it]), consideration/allowance is made for the proliferation of digital assistance while at the same time retaining the centuries old basis for this in a reasonable requirement of aural/analog tuning. 

The one and only place I see where a significant improvement could be made is in improving the repeatable accuracy of data input (to the benefit of the applicant) particularly in the stability and unison sections.

I do agree though that excessive emphasis on starting pitch level these days is not that big of an issue, but they should be able to do it. 

Just my .02 FWIW

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Wim

i certainly wasn't  expecting any changes because of my posting. This was just a follow up to the discussion of Ryan's and I was thinking about how I would train someone, what would be emphasized and at what point I would trust them to do a respectable job  And isn't that the goal?  

All due respect to aural tuners who have taken the time to learn the skill, I hear some aural tunings by certified folks that don't impress me that much. Mostly it's unisons and stability where they falter even if the get the temperament basically right. That and "custom" stretches in the top octave that have the C7-C8 octave anywhere from 10 to 30 cents wide. I'm sure it sounds "better" to them but it doesn't to me and would lose them points on a test, I would guess. So I wonder, what's the point of proving we can be "artistic" in our approach?

i just think we're lagging behind the reality of how people work and how they will work in the future. It reeks of counterproductive sentimentality.  Better, if folks prefer to work in a more modern way, that we test them on mastering the technology and then the analog skills that they'll need whichever way they prefer to work. To me that's stability and unisons, and aural acuity in the form of detection and analysis  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 09-04-2024 16:25
From: Wim Blees
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

Original Message:
Sent: 9/4/2024 1:23:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RPT tuning test protocols

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Carl, 

Thanks for posting this. For what it's worth, I think the proposal is excellent, and I like that it offers both a moderate stepping stone with the first option, and a more ambitious project with the second. Clearly you all thought through this very thoroughly.

Is it worth having a further discussion about why it hasn't gotten any traction, perhaps over in PTG-L?

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Carl, 

Thanks for posting this. For what it's worth, I think the proposal is excellent, and I like that it offers both a moderate stepping stone with the first option, and a more ambitious project with the second. Clearly you all thought through this very thoroughly.

Is it worth having a further discussion about why it hasn't gotten any traction, perhaps over in PTG-L?

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably. 

1. Stability, stability and then more stability. If you can't tune a string stable, not much point in trying to learn anything else.  How will you know if you've accomplished what you set out to do if you're not sure if it's staying where you put it?  That involves proper use of the tuning hammer, how to feel the pin move, understanding torque and the stresses that are on the pin, etc.. For learning stability, I think an ETD is an essential tool.

2. Unisons. listening to two string and three string unisons (aural)  

If they mastered those two things, stability and unisons, and then used an ETD for setting the bearings (temperament and the octaves) I'd be fine sending them out into the field to tune. 

3.  While they're out making a living, I would have them learn octaves (different types and the appropriate tests: 3rds and 6ths, 3rds and 10ths, etc) 

4. How to tune and test fourths and fifths, wide and narrow 

5. How to set a two octave series of contiguous thirds (F2-F4).

6. Finally how to set a temperament. 

As far as the RPT test, I would skip the tuning fork test (electronic forks are more accurate and not subject to temperature or poor calibrations and these days you can get a visual fork on your phone).  I would put more scoring emphasis on tuning stability and aural unisons.  I would make test takers tune unisons (some number) in each octave from C1 - C7. Above C7 many people are tuning each string to an ETD these days and that's ok with me.  Lots of noise and falseness up there on most pianos that make reasonable grading too subject to the quality of the piano.  We're not testing whether someone can hear through crap, or shouldn't be. (This isn't proving that they can walk to school barefoot in the snow uphill both ways)  

I would test the ability to identify wide or narrow octaves by ear and wide or narrow fourths and fifths.  Maybe set up a series of 20 samples in which the test taker would have to know the relevant tests and simply answer: narrow, wide, perfect, etc.  

Otherwise, I would allow the use of an ETD for the whole piano tuning part and again focus on the C1 to C7 area (below and above that some ETDs jump around too much to agree on a reading)

Take off 1 point for each infraction, TBD how much deviation is allowed but emphasis on stability and unisons, stability and unisons and then again on stability and unisons.  Total 100 points for the whole test, you need 80 to pass. 

If someone wanted to be a CTE then 95 or 90 if they want to tune the entire piano aurally.

It's the era we're in.  To qualify to use a calculator you don't have to pass a slide rule test.  

First thoughts anyway

I would also insure that the pianos used pass the smell test.  That's a personal bias of mine since the piano I took the test on was shortly thereafter DQ'd (deservedly) and even though I passed the test it was not easy on the "bless your little heart" instrument.   

Feel free to disagree (I know you will)

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Carl, 

Thanks for posting this. For what it's worth, I think the proposal is excellent, and I like that it offers both a moderate stepping stone with the first option, and a more ambitious project with the second. Clearly you all thought through this very thoroughly.

Is it worth having a further discussion about why it hasn't gotten any traction, perhaps over in PTG-L?

Sean, first of all, if you've attended any national or regional conventions and perhaps you have, but imo they show that the PTG is in no way stagnating. The craft of field work and rebuilding has evolved enormously over the last decades and the PTG has been at the forefront of that. 

Also my opinion, if someone has developed their their tuning skills using an ETD to the point that they are doing good work and getting well payed for it, they could probably attain sufficient skills to pass the aural part of the tuning test in a matter of months if they spent an extra ten minutes or so per piano laying in a temperament and tuning the middle of the piano aurally. I.e. practicing, something well known to most musicians. One might think it's not going to improve them overall as a tuner but if one hasn't done it, they don't really know. Most advanced tuners I know think otherwise. Apprenticeships in Europe are up to 6 years long, they come out literally knowing how to build a piano, the time it takes to develop sufficient aural skills, even if it's 100 hours is minute in comparison to a lifetime career. 

Relaxing the rules to attract more new technicians rubs a lot of people the wrong way. We could attract more technicians by doing away with the exams altogether, and then we'd really be like the other organizations, some of whom give out credentials with no testing at all. 

The PTG has two member statuses - an associate (anyone with the $ to pay dues) and an RPT (someone verified by their peers to do good work). 

There is a clear breakdown in the RPT status and testing - an RPT status should imply that the person who is advertising this title is a capable technician who understands theory (written), can repair many common issues (technical) and tune the piano well (tuning).

There is a real scenario here, much like people boycotting student loan payoffs, that just because they had to do it by ear, everyone else has to too. 

The PTG would attract (and educate) more people if the tuning test allowed ETDs. The client doesn't care how the piano was tuned if it sounds good and holds well. I'd be curious to know how many RPTs are tuning 100% by ear (I know of ONE) otherwise, it seems as soon as the test is over, back to the ETD we go. 

This has become a waiting game. The rules will change. Until then, the PTG will continue to lose memberships to random groups giving random titles. Can we talk about 'certified' technicians from the PTA or APTU, or whatever else anyone wants to make up… people wouldn't need this if PTG wasn't stagnating.

Adjust the rules, verify good work, give the credential, attract new technicians. 

Just my .02

Since one of the perks of passing the RPT test is the right to use "RPT" in your advertising and promotion, which marks that person as especially skilled, it stands to reason that the test ought to say more than that the person is ready to go out in the field and work.  It should say that person more than just a minimally qualified tech.  Therefore I see nothing wrong with having the test set standards that are somewhat higher than what is actually needed to work in the field.

This comes on the heels of Ryan Sowers' thread on ETDs but I thought I'd start a new thread as it gave rise to some thoughts I have been having re the ETD:AT debate.   

It occurred to me that maybe the more important discussion is whether or not the current testing protocols are really up to date anymore. I don't really think they are. 

I have thought about if I were teaching someone to tune in order to send them out into the field, what I would want them to master first and what could they master later.  Setting a temperament by ear would be the last thing I would worry about, probably.