Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum tuning devices

The tune-off was Virgil Smith, and Jim Coleman Sr. (just to clarify).

Both are amazing technicians, and therein lies the heart of the matter. Certainly Jim Coleman Sr. wasn't using ETD's when he was a wee lad tuning pianos. He has used the ETD as it is designed to be, a tool. It is a tool in the arsenal of tuning, not the tuning itself. I don't argue that ETD's are great and wonderful, I use mine every day. But without my ear being able to check what's going on, how good would it be? Maybe great, maybe not, but I like redundancy. I like having a fail safe. Maybe it comes from climbing, never setup only one anchor point, when you can setup two.

Same applies here, why use only one tool for tuning, when you can use two? I think you save your ear in the longrun, and give your customers better work.

You are certainly right though, new technicians need to also spend adequate time learning the fundamentals of regulation and voicing as well.

KlavierBauer

This is probably showing my ignorance here but I seem to pretty good at that. I've read about false beats and I think that is where a string has beats in it while speaking alone. I believe there are different reasons why they occur so when a technician comes across an instrument with false beats how does that play out with the ETD? Does the technician need to "compensate" somehow? Sure the pitch may be correct but doesn't that affect the reading on the ETD or does the ETD know when to compensate? I know there has got to be an easy answer. Thanks for all your input thus far.

I must confess to being something of an obsessive fanatic when setting the temperament. As a result, it can even take me a bit longer when using the Verituner as opposed to an aural only approach there. This is because I'm constantly checking out the Verituner's accuracy through aural checks.

It's funny that in the first eleven yars of my tuning career I was "aurally fixated". Then when I acquired an SAT I, I became dependent on it and really felt at a loss on those several occasions I didn't have it(as when I had to send in for repairs). These days though I don't seem to have quite that dependency on the few occasions I've had to also send in the Verituner for fixing problems.

Mark Mandell@pianosource.com

ejks,

The ETDs don't listen to beats, so they are irrelevant to the machine. An aural tuner quickly realizes through process of elimination that a beat is false and simply ignores it.

FWIW, I find false beats less and less common (or more reparable) these days, because typical new inexpensive pianos are much better made. I find most of the intractable false beating problems are in U.S. made spinets, but thankfully I see less and less of those in the field each year.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Not to be confused with Chris W, I'm of almost the opposite persuasion. I won't make a techno anecdote about why I'd bet ETD tunings yield better results, on average, than do aural tunings. I would disagree that you can't tune with an ETD if you can't achieve an equal result without one. Maybe that's a different, higher standard, than merely having an understanding of aural tuning, or being able to hear beats in unisons, octaves, or perhaps fifths.

I would hate to have to grade myself with an ETD, as the PTG does, if I didn't have it along with me most of the way. I will say, however, that Rick, you are welcome to come by and judge my DIY efforts any time you are next in the Boston area.

Anyone know if Pocket PC's will run Tunelabs?

Cheers,
Chris W1

What everybody has said has truth. Especially the one about the lady that believed she was getting an non-EDT tuning. I have been using a Sanderson Sigh-0tuner, then a SAT 1 and now a
SAT 3 for over 27 years. Probably 20k pianos. I also have passed the RPT test. The EDT is a good thing. Any tuner that disregards the effectiveness of a properly used EDT is living in another dimension. Any pianist that does the same is too stupid to learn anythin new , so why bother??? The fastest way to learn is to use anm EDT to confirm what your ear tell you. But knowledge is different from experience. Just get in there and DO IT!!! everything will sort itself out. trust me....

Will *anyone* here read that Scientific American article and turn this into an intelligent discussion, or are you all just going to chant your ETD mantras?

This is an opportunity to learn something about this subject, folks. If you consider yourselves professional you ought to avail yourselves of that opportunity.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Jim Coleman is an excellent aural tuner. However he has used ETD's since they were invented, from the Conn strobe to the SAT to the Cybertuner. He is not afraid of technology.
I heard of a story about adding machines introduced to Japanese workers to improve effeciency. The opposite result was achieved. The problem? The employees were adding the figures on their adding machines but they did not trust them. They were checking the figures on their abbaci.
As they say in pilot school, trust you guages. Spend the other time doing things that make a difference.

Rick, I will gladly read the article you linked, as well as bump this article back up, so we can begin an intelligent discussion.

I hope I wasn't contributing to it's idiocy.

KlavierBauer

In response to KlavierBauer,
You used the word "link" in reference to the article in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 1979?? Did I miss something? Is there a link so I can click it on or does it need to be dug out of the archives at the local library? Thanks.
ej

OK, Rick, I happened to read that article after I bought that issue years ago. So are you referring to the small "detuning" policy for unisons that extends their sustaining time a little?

Mark@pianosource.com

Mark,

I wouldn't quite put it in those terms, but that is the article. It has to do with the reflection of the wave through the string and board, phase cancellation as a result of those reflections, and how good ear tuners naturally "fudge" the unisons a bit by ear to get a good, rounded, smoothly progressing, pianistic dynamics envelope on each note, whereas tuning unisons electronically to the same frequency results in a more abbreviated, "deader" type sound.

Since when I hear a consumer complaint about how an ETD tuning came out, the phrase "dead sounding" (or some variation) is usually attached, I tend to think that this effect is significant to the listener/pianist.

Mind you, this is only one issue regarding why an ETD tuner needs to have a "tuner's ear" to understand what does or does not constitute a good tuning.... but since it is so well documented, accessible, and clearly explained, I thought it would be a good place to start, for those of the ETD "no ear tuning ability necessary" persuasion.

Also, I have been called a "dinosaur", and I assume that means "old, set in my ways, unable to change, and not keeping up with current knowledge". I wish to call out the opposition as to the extent of their knowledge and experience on this subject and see what they really know about it and whether they can successfully argue their position without resorting to ad hominem comments.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Rick, I have never experimented with what you are talking about but it makes sense. I have always tuned unisons by ear, and I thought everyone else did as well. I think I can get a unison in tune better/faster with my ear vs. a machine. I tune middle strings with the ETD, and unisons by ear.

Anyway, it would be interesting to setup a situation where you could tune a section of unisons with an ETD, and then the same section by ear on another piano, and see how close the ETD is. I would think that because of inharmonicity, the place where a unison will sound best is not necessarily where the machine wants it to be mathematically. This is basically what you were pointing to in your earler post yes?

KlavierBauer

KB and Rick- this also opened my eyes up. I assumed that in this discussion ETD tuning meant tuning one unison string by ETD and the rest to that string by ear. Does anyone out there really tune all 3 strings by ETD? Just for the record, from Day One 28 years ago, I have always tuned one string by ETD, and the rest of that unison by ear. I call that an ETD tuning. Have we been talking about different things here? Note to KB- any reason that you tune the middle string first? I have heard of it being done in all possible orders; just curious why you prefer middle string........Sam

Klavierbauer, no that's not what I meant, and I don't think it's what I said. It's not an inharmonicity issue, it's a wave phase cancellation issue that impacts the volume dynamics envelope of the note. The result is the ear tuned unisons do not have each string to the exact same frequency like the ETDs, but it is more musical and more "correct" than tuning each string to the same frequency.

"me", yes that is the article.

Sam, the ETD tuners I have watched did not do the unisons by ear, but rather by ETD, each string isolated in turn. They referred to the machine on every string. I guess I thought *that* is the usual way.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Rick and all: well it took us a while to get to this point, by all of us assuming we knew what the other really meant. I would be interested in what others in this thread consider "ear" and "ETD" tuning. For me, "ear" is tuning without benefit of an ETD. My view of ETD tuning is using the ETD to tune no more than one string of any given unison. How about the rest of you ETDs on this thread- how do you do it? As much as I love my ETD, I cant imagine using it to tune 3 strings of a unison, for 1 reason: Speed ........Sam

I guess I still retain something of a pro-aural or ear tuning bias here because I don't trust the ETA's(like my Verituner) to provide me with a satisfactory sounding unison if I tune all the strings this way. But on a few occasions I have used the ETA for the unison tuning to help with false beats, I actually wasn't displeased with the result, so go figure.

Mark@pianosource.com

Rick, sorry for miscommunicating.

My mind was going in two different directions. I was hypothesizing about inharmonicity, but referring to your comment about the same outcome (with different processes). I will try to find the article you mentioned so I can better understand what you're saying, although it makes sense. Not that it's the same thing, but we can see what different phasing in the sound envelope will do when a hammer doesn't hit all 3 strings squarely. I understand this is a different subject, but a similar principle I think. Two sign waves out of phase can do some funny things soundwise. Again, sorry for implying that you were talking about inharmonicity, I understand that you weren't. I sometimes have trouble communicating with this medium. I hope I didn't cause you to sigh and exclaim "He just doesn't get it!" *grin*

Sam: I tune the middle string first simply because I've always done it that way. I have a very efficient system of moving the mute when I tune that way, and can move from note to note very easily. I strip mute the piano with felt, tune middle strings, then pull the mute strip. Then with a rubber mute, I tune right, then left strings through the section. I tune one section at a time this way. Of course if the piano is severely out of tune, I will adjust methods accordingly. For example, setting the temperament section first, or pitch raising a section that is significantly flatter than the rest of the piano. But for the most part, I tune chromatically section by section.

KlavierBauer

I use the SAT to tune a single string and then tune the unison by ear excetp for octave 7 which I tune string by string and then check them by ear and by plucking each string. On very difficult pianos with lots of false beats I sometimes tune octaves 6 and 7 string by string with the SAT.

I would like to apologize for calling the pro-aural anti-etd tuners dinosaurs. From now on I will refer you as "John Henry's." :p