Why Ear Tuning is better than Machine Tuning

Despite modern measurement systems' precision surpassing human hearing, aural tuning remains the gold standard in piano tuning.

This assertion is taken from "Optimization of piano tuning by means of spectral entropy minimization" by Adam Szwajcowski.

Another study, "Entropy-based tuning of musical instruments," explores why professional aural tuners, who produce 'dirty-looking' tuning curves with a lot of fluctuations, are often considered to be better than advanced electronic devices, which produce smooth tuning curves with the correct stretch.

These papers inform the development of the open-source Entropy Piano Tuner, whichI initially believed this might be the future of piano tuning.

However, the reality is more complex.

1

Firstly, our preference for sound isn't simply about reducing entropy.

While these methods show promise, they lack formal listening tests. Since tuning quality is ultimately judged by humans, their perceptions should guide the assessment of these methods.

This quote is from "Automatic Tuning of High Piano Tones" by Sneha and Vesa. Also, in my experience using entropy tuning, it often struggles with intervals like fifths or fourths, which sound noticeably incorrect.

Anyone who's tuned a stringed instrument knows the importance of minimizing beats between strings.

So, while entropy tuning may minimize overall piano inharmonicity, it must also ensure the accuracy of fundamental intervals.

It represents a significant, but not definitive, advancement in automatic piano tuning.

2

On the other hand, suppose you have a perfect tuning device surpassing aural tuning. The challenge then becomes its application.

Tuning a piano is akin to setting up 88 dominos.

The positioning must be precise — too close or too far, and the whole sequence is disrupted.

It's more about the relational among notes more than their individual tuning.

For instance, if A4 is placed 0.1% off, and C3 0.1% off in the opposite direction, their relationship is now off by 0.2%. These discrepancies accumulate, leading to a suboptimal performance.

From a tuner's perspective, the priority is relationships, then precision, and finally unison.

Relationship > Precision > Unison

A piano tuned to 441Hz might sound wonderful, but a 0.2-0.4% discrepancy between notes can be more than enough to make awful sounds.

I'm not saying machines can't achieve good results.

But the skill and effort required to apply these results perfectly are often greater than those needed to learn aural tuning.