[pianotech] Tuning contest, original

[PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com]

Following this "test", Virgil and I had the same situation with two  Steinway 
B's at a college nearby in Chicago, except that we were both  tuning aurally, 
I using my customary practice of using beats and coincident  partial sets and 
interval tests, etc., Virgil tuning in some still unexplainable  fashion 
using what he calls "natural beats". He took two or so hours tuning his  piano, 
and I had only 45 minutes to give my piano  a quick pitchraise  of several cents 
and a quickie tuning. The Chicago Chapter then voted on which  piano they 
preferred, and the results were 50-50 or near enough. Why I  participated in this 
I don't know, since I believed then and believe now that  fine tunings are 
the product of uncountable hours of practice and refinement,  and that the 
"ability" is neither god-given nor electronic, but the result of  very intentional 
and directed practice. There is a really good book just  published on this 
phenomenon by Malcolm Gladwell called The Outliers. 
 
I can't, with all due respect, disagree with Jim Coleman  more strongly that 
this "event" should be repeated in any form or fashion.  It makes a circus and 
an adversarial setting of the strange and high art of  tuning, and as has 
already been proved several time, proves nothing except  that good tunings are 
indistinguishable from good tuning.
 
Paul 
 
 
In a message dated 12/21/2008 5:56:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
jkanter at rollingball.com writes:

List --  I wrote to Jim Coleman for his account of the famed tuning contest 
between him  and Virgil Smith. For the record:  


   
Hi Jason:
 
Since 1961 I have been teaching Visual Tuning as well as Aural  Tuning at all 
but about 6 Conventions plus many regional seminars. I  began tuning in 
around 1941 Aurally, then using the first visual tuning  devices since 1948 (The 
StroboConn). During Convetion teaching, I have  alway related Visual tuning to 
Aural tuning.
 
My dear Friend Virgil Smith have been arguing for 30 years about  where beats 
come from. I can appreciate his views of the importance of  hearing the whole 
tone, but the beats which we listen to come from  distinct partial 
coincidences. Yes there are more than on set of  coincident partials, but it is the 
lowest set to which we normally  listen.
 
The year that the RCT program came out, I challenged Virgil  to a "shoot out 
at the OK Coral" (The Tuneoff at Safir's Kawai  dealership in Chicago). We 
arrived in the morning and we took turns  tuning two fairly equal 6'8 Kawai 
grands. An audience of around 70  technicians from Ill, Wis and IN appeared before 
noon and registered  their vote as to which piano sounded best in tune to 
them. They did not  know who tuned which piano (a legitmate blind test). I had 
predicted  that there would not be a dime's worth of differnce between the 
tunings.  The score was approx. 52 to 48 in my favor where I had used the RCT and  
the SAT II. (hey, I cheated - I also used ears. I'm sorry, I just caint  hep 
it). I had only had the RCT for about a week and was not very good  at using it 
yet, but it was the main reference.
 
After lunch, we switched position of the two pianos on stage and  each of us 
tuned the piano which had previously been tuned by the other.  This time the 
Audience pretty well knew who tuned which piano. The  voting however came out 
pretty much the same.
 
Virgil and I are still good friends. A couple of months later  Virgil 
challenged me to a rematch in Orlando, FL in the summer.  There we had two Steinway 
7' pianos. Virgil had his piano in his  teaching room for several days. He went 
first using 1 1/2 hours. I  elected to tune mine with the visual tuning 
device in 45 minutes in  order to have 45 minutes left for voting and evaluation. 
Several people  did not vote because they could not tell the difference.
The voting percentages turned out to be pretty much the same, BUT  in 
Virgil's favor. BTW, I thought Virgil's piano sounded better  than mine. But again, 
it just shows that there is not much difference  between good aural tuning and 
good Visual tuning. However, there is a  world of difference between beginning 
aural tuning and beginning Visual  tuning. The Visual tuner will win every 
time.
 
I would like to see the same type of class presented in each  Convention. 
Some careful rules should be setup. 1) identical  pianos.  2) double blind 
testing where only the organizer knows who  tuned which piano. 3) The position of 
the pianos should be switched for  the second round, due to acoustic variations. 
4) During evaluations, the  pianos should be played by a Piano Disc, 
DiskKlavier, or other suitable  player to eliminate personal preference. Perhaps one 
of the Player  companies could provide the identical pianos with with short 
samples in  various key tonalities (this might also be good for comparing 
historical  and equal temperament tunings). There could be competitions setup in  
each region where the two winners of the highest percentages would  compete in 
the finals at a Convention. Of course, it could turnout that  both winners of 
the regionals would be Visual tuners or vice/versa. It  would still be a valid 
test. Many strictly aural tuners think that aural  tuning is the only way to 
go. On the other hand, it may prove my theory  that there is not that much 
difference. All the years I tuned on the  road for the Baldwin Piano Company, I 
tuned strictly aurally, even for  two piano concerts.
 
Jason, you have my permission to use this email in its entirety. It  should 
provoke some interesting comments.
 
Jim Coleman, Sr.


|  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||
jason's cell 425 830 1561
_http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonkanter_ 
(http://www.linkedin.com/in/jasonkanter) 
|  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||




**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20081221/1673ec50/attachment-0001.html>