Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum By Ear ! ?

I am somewhat new to playing the piano. My first piano was a rental that the tech tuned with the aid of computer and some software. I got rid of the rental and bought a Yamaha U3. The purchase included an in-home tuning, so the tech showed up and proceeded to tune my piano completely by ear. He said it wasn't very far out of tune to begin with. He started with A440, and tuned by the sound of the intervals. I am pleased with how the piano sounds, but really now... is it possible to tune a piano "right" in this manner?

To my mind,& with respect, that is the most ridiculous question ever !

It's the only proper way to tune a piano -

if you're sufficiently educated to that skill level.

People who rely on 'artificial' tuning-aids are either

incompetent at what they SHOULD be doing, or con-merchants -

who are charging money for what a monkey could do ...

ie: read a meter to say when it's "right".

Your comment is well taken, but remember my caveat: I just started playing the piano, so how would I know the "right way"? The first method by computer I observed seemed solid, but certainly depended on the software being used. The second method by ear seemed "amazing" to me, although I could hear the intervals too, and this guy had a good ear. So the second method depended on talent.

I always started with A440 on my violin, and tuned the other strings by ear, so what this guy did seemed OK to me. I don't think my question was "ridiculous" at all. Thanks, anyway...

It's not a ridiculous question by any means. You are not a technician, so how would you know? And in this day and age, we are used to computers and electronics assisting in pretty much everything we do.

What you've just witnessed is the polarization in the trade between opposing opinions concerning aural ( by ear) tuning vs. electronic. If a tech is not a good tech, and does not possess good skills and a very good ear, he/she will do a poor job regardless which method he uses. If a tech is a good tech and DOES possess good skills, he will do a fantastic job regardless of what method he/she uses.

For years before the invention of electronics, tuners tuned solely by ear. Many of the old "masters" passed down techniques that are used today by many technicians.

I thought it was a good question from a piano player who is a non-tech.

I'm sorry about using the word 'ridiculous' in my answer -

it wasn't meant as a personal insult.

It's just that having spent 3 full-time years training at college + countless pianos I've worked on,

you get some folks who think that by spending some money on the latest gadget,

that suddenly qualifies them as an 'expert'.

No electronic device enables anyone to tune unisons. Gotta use ears for that!

Agreed - & have you heard how many badly-tuned unisons on so-called freshly tuned pianos are out there ? -

usually by people using electronic tuning aids.

Mostly, I hear unisons that slip a day or so after the tuning, which to me is more illustrative of bad technique, regardless of the tuning method. The best ear is useless if the piano won't stay in tune.

Having relied on ETD's and currently working on my aural skills, I'm reading your comments in a real negative tone. No disrespect, but a marriage between the two can and has been demonstrated as a positive thing.

Les, my position is that a tech requires skill to tune a piano properly, and that a skilled tech can do a fine job with either method. I've heard great and horrible tunings from both.

Am I (as a non-tech) to assume that this is because of bad pin setting technique?
I used to tune my old beat up almost-ready-for-the-dump upright (I have a good ear) but I have not yet touched my grand because I know little about pin setting technique (except for what I have read).

Exactly! Unless the tech can leave the pin and string in positions that will stay in tune, the tuning will not hold; it'll go out of tune as soon as someone plays it.

Well, that illustrates my point -

poor technique, allied with poor ability, will lead to that.

I often find that pianos I've not tuned for 12 months or more

are still almost perfectly in tune, because I tune it spot-on

in the first place, & set the pins correctly, so they don't 'slip'.

Precisely. And you would set those pins correctly whether you tuner aurally or with an etd. That's my point.

There are no ridiculous questions, only ridiculous answers. Until 1936 tuning by ear was the only way. There were some weird and wonderful tuning aids that never caught on. The Conn stroboscope was invented to aid in the tuning of wind instruments and was adopted by piano tuners but you had to have an understanding of the way harmonics work on pianos to use it properly. Electronics have developed greatly since then and it now takes little intelligence to produce an acceptable tuning but the skills involved in producing a solid tuning that will last through the onslaughts of sometimes brutal pianists is the real skill.
I came from the oposite camp, Les , having tuned for years by ear, I now will use electronics in a NewYork minute when the circumstances dictate. For the finest tuning that takes onto account the whole piano, however, only the human ear can hear across thevwhole spectrum of sound to create a cohesive doubt from top to bottom of the piano. Electronics have not, so far, been able to hear more than one partial of one note at a time. As you can imagine, a distinct disadvantage.

The day I would turn to using an ETD would be the day I go deaf.

Each piano has its own charactaristics, which can only be 'felt' by a skilled aural tuner -

certain intervals may require adjusting out of the 'normal' parameters,

to make the piano *as a whole* sound as good as is possible.

Only a trained ear -not a machine- is capable of doing that.

That's fine. I'm just saying, it's illogical to state that if someone tunes with a device, that means their technique is automatically bad. As I just illustrated, one can produce an excellent tuning by ear and still have a technique that causes the tuning to fail prematurely. If you didn't have the skills to set the pins right, the best ear in the world couldn't save you.

By the way, when I had my taxes done, I INSISTED my accountant use a paper and pencil. None of those newfangled calculators or computer software thingies. Of course, he didn't know anything about tax law specifics, but at least he did it the old-fashioned way.

Whether or not a person "chooses" to use an EDT or to tune by ear, the requirement still stands that the person behind the machine is either capable or they are not capable of producing a great tuning. There is NO in between. Whether that be using a computer like what I'm using right now to send you this message, or tuning a piano. It is the person behind it that helps to either make it or break it.

That said, my biggest point will be this. Setting tuning pins aside completely! You MUST be able to hear it to begin with. First, and foremost. If you cannot hear it, then the tuning will not come out correctly, period. It will not matter what you use or how you tune the piano or how well you set the tuning pins. If you cannot hear it, the tuning will still sound bad. Now, add not being able to properly set a tuning pin on top of that, now the tuning will not only sound badly, but, it will go out twice as fast (or more) than a good, properly set tuning will.

To automatically "assume" that a piano tuned using an EDT will come out sounding rotten, or that those that "prefer to use" an EDT will automactially do a lousy tuning or cannot hear is nuts! Tell that one to Don Mannino who also uses an EDT and many others on this list and off, that I know of who use one and who do a marvelous tuning with it. Why? Because they not only understand what they are talking about but, they also understand how to use and how to properly set the EDT to do what THEY want IT to do. On top of that, they also have excellent ears, capable of hearing what is right and what is wrong. If the EDT sets things incorrectly, they can hear what to do to correct it. However, most often when properly used, a properly used EDT will tune ONE STRING only just fine. All unison's should be tuned by ear.

As Dean Reyburn likes to say, "a tuning device is not meant to replace the human ear, it is meant to assist it, to make things easier for us." What should all of us still be using? A computer or, an old fashioned type writer because that is what USED to be used?

Once again, Groot nails it! Way to go, Jer.

An apt comparison, Loren.
The ability my device to remember tunings is invaluable in studio work when recordings sessions for the same record are scheduled weeks apart. And, of course for tuning two pianos together for recording. I have to admit it's the fastest way of attaining the highest possible standards. I wouldn't dream of doing it any other way. I used to tune for a concert organist who used a concert piano in his performance. It had to be tuned with no stretch to match the organ. How else am I going to do that and how ridiculous would it be for
me to refuse to tune that way for 'artistic' reasons. It did cost extra for disturbing the stability of a concert piano and restore it to normal afterwards.

I have had 4 tunings now (by three tuners) and this last, that was done 90 percent by tunelab, is the only one that's truly pleased me. As an end user, I don't care about the method; I care about the result. I asked this new to me tuner about ear tuning and he said absolutely, it's how he learned and if I prefered an ear tuning, he'd be glad to do it. After tuning by ear for 10 years, he feels he does a better job with less fatigue and better repeatability with the TuneLab. He also said it was his teacher's, teacher, one that gives (ear) tuning seminars for the PTG around here that encouraged him to look into the TuneLab. These are not guys who can't tune by ear and a tuner's hammer technique stays the same regardless if they use a meter to correlate what their ears hear or not. That said, my least favorite tuning was also done at least partially with a meter. It's not the tool, it's the hands and mind that run it.

Lord Kelvin had this to say about it:

"In physical science the first essential step in the direction of learning any subject is to find principles of numerical reckoning and practicable methods for measuring some quality connected with it. I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be." [PLA, vol. 1, "Electrical Units of Measurement", 1883-05-03]

Have you been to a large concert in the last 10 years? Have you noticed that you can understand the vocals? That you can tell the bass guitar from the pedals on the organ? You don't have to go very far back to remember when you couldn't. It's better because they better understand what happens to sound when it leaves a speaker and bounces around a room. Why do they better understand this? Because they learned to measure it. The mere meter didn't retard the art but rather advanced it.


Kurt

There are numerous fields of science and trades where technology has bridged a gap between in using multi senses to accomplish a goal. It has also been shown that the human brain often finds a way to co-relate information gathered from different senses that sheds additional light on the task being rendered. I used to tune by ear entirely and now I find something indescribably lacking if I don't use a good ETD also. Many of the old fashioned techs I know who have tried the the most advanced ETD's out there now embrace them eventually when they recognize its benefit as a mere tool and learn to properly use them.

The end goal is to product an outstanding tuning for the customer. Whichever road gets you there is secondary.

We all speak from our own experience. Your experience, kurt is of your piano tuned by your tuners. Invoking Kelvin, brilliant as he was, does not change this nor does it prove your point but it did cause me to consider. Society persists in speaking of reducing things to numbers I have never heard even my mathematician friends say anything like ' now, let's elevate this to numbers'. Perhaps I'm just being silly by reducing it to the absurd.
While I freely admit to using electronics, I have never used a machine for the covered strings. The variables in hand wound strings are just too, well, variable. Even when time is limited, I find it quicker, even using reference points in and above the middle range of the piano where listeners ears are usually focussed. (I use the sostenuto pedal an awful lot while tuning the treble and bass). This probly makes a difference that makes no difference, the important thing is to produce a solid tuning and that's why I'm careful not to slam the door on my way out.

I don't disagree with you RXD so don't infer that I had some unified point. There are many ways to a good tuning, I'm sure. My kelvin quote was purely meant as a foil to John's diatribe.

I am naught but the sum of my existence. On this we agree.

Be well,

Kurt

Really?

In the spectrum display Tunelab gives you the offsets and relative strengths of all partials when measuring a note, and that's measured at once.

Verituner hears at 8 partials at a time.

Onlypure Tuning allows you to tune unisons!

The most advanced ETDs allow you to design an appropriate tuning curve that fits the particular scale of each piano, and you can customize your tunings exactly the way you want.

That said, if someone is incompetent at tuning, even the most advanced ETD can not help him to get a good tuning.

An ETD is only a tool. A good human tuner must be behind it to produce a good tuning.

In my opinion ETDs have evolved more than some "old fashioned" techs can imagine.

If they don't try, how can they know?

I have never used an ETD, but try to keep an open mind.

Having an open mind brings up the question that if ETDs are not good enough for unisons, then why are they good enough for intervals?

Unisons probably CAN be done with an ETD, but why? It's so much faster to do it by ear. The ear just locks in to it and it becomes natural.

You are waffling...

lol whatever you say, Jeff.

One reason is that on the lower notes, the fundamental is not measured on many ETDs. If you are tuning a 6:3 octave, the first partial may not even be measured. In fact, the first several partials may not even be measured. You would not necessarily want to rely on the machine to set the unison.

Edit: Now that I think about it, the same thing could be said of the higher notes. If you are using a 4:2 octave, the machine may care more about the placement of the second partial on the higher note over the first partial. In this case, it will refer to the second partial to determine when the string is in tune. This is good for setting the octave, but not so good for the unison... especially if the three strings are not an exact match to each other.

Joe:

I think aurally the bass unisons are tuned with higher partials, also. In the tenor I often hear both the beat of the fundamental and the 2nd partial.

For me (just for me) the slight changes I hear while manipulating hammer are what makes good stability possible. I really doubt I (just I) could get the same feedback from a visual display. It might be there, but I don't think I could use it.

What's happening here is very common on open forums such as ours. A person will make some ridiculous and/or idiotic statement, such as this one, and stir up the pot, then go away and enjoy the resulting turmoil.

If you notice, this thread has 39 or so posts by now, only 5 of which are his. People who do this are referred to, when referred to at all, as trolls and the best way to handle trolls is to just ignore them. The troll will usually go away, since they feed on the attention something like this produces.

In the future, I would respectfully suggest that we not take the bait and just move on without replying. The troll will move on, as well.

Just my $.02.

My $0.02 is that this is a pretty baseless claim. Look at the posters other posts. They're new to piano, had a question and are now being attacked for it. Ain't the Internet grand?

Me, I tune unisons by ear. For what I know the only ETD that claims to be able to tune good unisons is Onlypure. Maybe someone who uses the Onlypure software, like Her Stopper or Mr. Kent Swafford can enlighten us about that.

Sometimes when I find a difficult unison, with non-matching partials, the use of my ETD is the best way to solve conflicts. Even better than my own ear.

Tuning notes with false beats is another spot where I find the ETD is superior to the human ear.

Technology is there for us to take profit. Sure things can be done without it, they were done that way before. But if it can help we have no reason to not use it to do better what we do.

Jeff, I only know as I was taught. We were taught that the fundamental is most important to get beatless.... including in the bass. On the finest tunings, we would listen to almost the point of die-off to get a beatless fundamental. But, there were exceptions. If there was false beating, or if there was some obnoxious overtone, we would, of course, compromise to get the least objectionable sound.

Joe:

Don't be afraid to go beyond what has been taught. Who taught the first chicken to peck?

I give up on this 'discussion' -

the fact is that only a VERY a small percentage people have the natural abilty to be a piano tuner.

Many people decide/pretend to be be, but it's delusion.

At the college I trained at, only 12 places were available.....

over 260 people applied, & only 11 of those places were filled.

(after a full-day assessment).

Out of those 11 of us, 3 of us attained top grades.

Others went down the 'easy' route of using ETD's to get some sort of a career in piano tuning.

IE: a cop-out. That's my opinion, & like it or not, I'm sticking to it,

because I've worked hard to get to the standard I'm at -

& when I see the 'quality' of work some 'tuners' do,

it appalls me that they charge money for it.

It would be interesting to see the data backing up that statement. Is there any, or are you just voicing your opinion?


In 27 years of tuning aurally, I never considered myself god-like. Should I?



Keep that open mind and you'll go far!

False!

Anyone with normal hearing can be a piano tuner!

When my clients say to me: "You'd got a good ear to tune pianos!"

I say:

"No, I have a normal ear, just as yours. I have a normal but educated ear."

The first time I tried to tune I couldn't hear the beats, I couldn't hear the difference between a solid unison and what I was tuning. That came with education, hammer technique, and many many hours of practice and listening.

My ear has not changed. What changed was the way I interprete what I hear. All the stuff I learned about tuning.

Anyone with normal skills can learn.

Well, in fact, you really do have to have a good ear to tune pianos Rafael. However, our ears are trained to hear what we hear, which is what gives us, our good ears. Their ears are not trained to hear what we hear. If they were, they would tune their pianos a lot more often.

Well thanks Jerry,



Should I also?

I know about piano tuners who use ear aids!

Obviously their ears (brains) are trained to hear what they need and they do a nice work tuning pianos.

I don't think about me as a special gifted person. Only a trained one.

Exactly!

Well, one could interpret "good ear," in the same way as someone having a "good eye for art" and not something like the ability to hear out to 16 KHz or something like that.

Hi Jeff,

I really wanted to consider this for a few days before replying.

I still think that P1, the fundamental, is most important in most circumstances when tuning unisons. When the pianist plays the note A1, he/she is playing A1 because that is the note he/she wishes to sound. He does not play A1 because he wants E3 (P3) or A3 (P4) to sound... at least not generally. Otherwise, he'd play those notes instead. And, does he want A1(P1) to have a beat anyhow?

If another partial is louder than P1 on individual strings, that can be at least somewhat corrected by paying attention to P1. If the two strings generating A1 are in perfect sync (beatless) at A1 (P1), then A1 (P1) will at least be more prominent than it was. If the other, louder partial is slightly out of phase, then it may become less loud. If P5 is loudest, then tuning the unison by P5 might actually be amplifying a defect, IMO... especially if F1 and other partials are beating noticeably.

Beatless at P1 is still a fairly large zone (in the bass especially). There is usually room to finesse the other partials a little, while still keeping P1 "dead". Of course, ideally all partials will line up exactly

But, tuning unisons this way can make for a more difficult tuning job. What if P1 is made beatless and then the other partials do not line up exactly? The other partials may be pulled slightly from where they were. What becomes of the tests used to set the octave, fifth, fourth, etc. using single strings? The checks must be done again after tuning the unison, and the placement of the unison might need to be tweaked a little. This is true whether tuning by ear or by machine, IMO.

However, if someone prefers to tune unisons by another partial, it is harmless to the piano. The difference in tension is trivial. Preferences are preferences.

But, this old chicken is going to keep pecking the way he was shown

I DO use Tunelab to help me tune the unisons...somewhat. I can immediately hear when a unison is out, the problem is that sometimes it's not very easy to tell if it is a little below or a little above. Looking at the display I can see both strings immediately and know which direction to go. Then as the peaks merge, my ears then take over waiting for the beats to stop. This saves so much time rather than just guessing. Like everyone else has said, it all depends on who is doing the tuning. A few months ago, a few instrumentalists from the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra came down to my area. I tuned the piano that they were using. I used Tunelab, calculated the tuning curve and then layered Bill's EVBT 3 on top of the tuning curve that Tunelab determined that this specific piano needed. Keep in mind that these were world-renowned musicians. The pianist was originally from Russia and has her Doctorate in Piano Performance. I got to meet her before the performance and explained to her that my tuning might sound a little different from other pianos tuned in ET. She was fascinated by the EVBT 3. The piano sang!!! The "organ-effect" was heard several times. The upper treble notes were clear and bell-like. There were so many different colors. You could hear a change in the personality of the piano as she would modulate from one key to the next and to top it all off, despite all of her pounding, the piano was still in tune at the end.

I'm looking forward to trying EBVT on one of the college Steinway B's come fall.

Is Bill's EBVT avaiable for the Verituner?

Not sure. I'm going to do it aurally using his sequence.

Yes, it is.