Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum HISTORICAL ET AND MODERN ETs

In all this sharing, I would like to make one point and three questions.

In my opinion, 12th root of two ET may well be considered a Historical Temperament too, since it pays for the "pure octaves" ancient dogma, and today it could well be referred to as the first algebraic/geometrical model, just by acknowledging other new ET models.

Why do I get the impression that Time stopped with 12th root of two ET?

People featuring non-equal temperaments or UTs say that they have more "colour", that "tempering" from just results in (in meaning) tone's colour. This may be fair enough. Personally, I'm in favour of beats and you may well know why.

What I do not understand is: what is difficult about acknowledging modern ETs, i.e. new algebraic geometrical models, new degrees of harmoniousness, new tonal effects, new spectral fusions, and accepting that also 12th root of two ET could evolve, actually it has evolved.

What is then "true" ET?
Does (in your opinion) modernity make people giddy?

a.c.

.

Two very different things - unequal putting the variety of beatspeeds in non-chromatic order; sometimes featuring equal beating intervals.

Equal -modern or otherwise puts variety of beatspeeds in chromatic order. The size of the octave is irrelevant to Equal or not.

Ron Koval
chicagoland

Quotes by a.c.

"Why do I get the impression that Time stopped with 12th root of two ET?"

Because we live in a fast paced era in which things come and go quickly, yet the 12th root of 2 ET has been used predominantly in our music with great success and only small change in the last 90 years.

"...what is difficult about acknowledging modern ETs..."

Same thing as acknowledging anything new or different, having an open mind, a willingness to not fear change, and an understanding that polarity leaves no freedom to incorporate something along with something else. Polarizing our tastes creates an all or nothing/take it or leave it attitude. All temperaments have value given the right circumstances and music. A technician may have difficulty making a living out of exclusively tuning some of them (historical temperaments).

"What is then "true" ET?"

A division of an octave or pseudo octave into equal parts on a logarithmic scale.

Ron, you write:

..."Two very different things - unequal putting the variety of beatspeeds in non-chromatic order; sometimes featuring equal beating intervals."...

About chromatic or "non-chromatic order", Bill Bremmer wrote something similar to: who will ever check the progression of 3rds?

I understood that Bill as well would prefere to talk about harmoniousness and effects. If so, there is some more and new (Modern ET) harmoniousness and effects to be acknowledged...

..."Equal -modern or otherwise puts variety of beatspeeds in chromatic order."...

Where is the problem? I do not think it should be a problem of "chromatic or not chromatic", it could be a theme: harmoniousness and resonance + all the qualities or effects you can think of.

..."The size of the octave is irrelevant to Equal or not."...

Well, not really. Historical ET (12th root of two) theorizes non-tuneable pure octaves, modern ETs temper (and tune) the octaves.

Emmery, you write:

..."yet the 12th root of 2 ET has been used predominantly in our music with great success and only small change in the last 90 years."...

Ok, but what about putting in practice what is theorized by 12th root of two ET (pure octaves)? Can we really say, as you say, that it "has been used...with great success and only small change in the last 90 years."? In my opinion the debate on its acceptance and its practicability is still open.

..."What is then "true" ET?"

You say: "A division of an octave or pseudo octave into equal parts on a logarithmic scale."...

I do not know if this is still correct. Cordier's ET has a 7 semitones module, Stopper's has a 19 semitones module, Chas has an infinite-number-of-semitones module. This is to say that yes, the semitones are equal and on a logarithmic scale, but Modern ETs do not fix their module on the octave anymore. This is the improvement, did you mean that with "pseudo octaves"?

In any case, Modern ETs modules do make a difference, both for us (tuners) and for the piano's performance.

Regards, a.c.

.

You are correct about the module...I should also include the expanded versions in my definition. For practical purposes, the majority of tuners use the octave as the base.

..."I should also include the expanded versions in my definition. For practical purposes, the majority of tuners use the octave as the base."...

Yes, me too, the octave interrelated with two 4ths and two 5ths, so to control 2:1, 4:3 and 3:2 ratios.

Previously you wrote:..."Same thing as acknowledging anything new or different, having an open mind, a willingness to not fear change, and an understanding that polarity leaves no freedom to incorporate something along with something else. Polarizing our tastes creates an all or nothing/take it or leave it attitude. All temperaments have value given the right circumstances and music."...

I like this, thanks. You say polarity, I'd say useless rivality.

a.c.
.

All good points. Thank you, Emmery, for not taking the mock and ridicule tact this time. Along the lines of the "What did you do today?" thread, the one Steinway customer I took today when I usually avoid working if I can, specifically sought me out and asked the the EBVT III by name. He has a model B Steinway, purchased from the local Steinway dealer. He did not want ET which is all that dealer's technicians offer. Although I know that two of that dealer's technicians are familiar with other temperaments and they have done them often, that Steinway dealer forbids them to tune any Steinway pianos in anything but ET.

Not being able to get the tuning he wanted, the customer sought me out for the first time. He also had three other keyboard instruments, all early types, various types of harpsichords.

That Steinway dealership opened in 2006 after Steinway abandoned their former local dealership with whom they had been for 90 years. My prediction is that the new dealership will fail within a few years and close. The local Yamaha dealer closed about 2 years ago leaving this area with no Yamaha representation. They also chose to mock and ridicule the use of non-equal temperaments. Their technicians also mocked and ridiculed PTG. As many times as they were invited to attend PTG functions, they refused.

They would tell their customers all of what I often see written here, all of the theories about why ET is best, etc., but the problem was that what they actually did instead was reverse well. Time after time, year after year, I was asked to tune a Yamaha piano by an owner who had not been satisfied by the service provided by the Yamaha dealer technicians.

Temperament itself wasn't the only issue, I must say. The Yamaha dealer also mocked and ridiculed the installation and use of Dampp-Chaser systems. The salesmen and technicians enjoyed their guffaws as they called the humidity control systems, "washer-drier combinations". They laughed harder at the "crazy guys" who tuned "hysterical" temperaments.

The dealer and its technicians put themselves out of business because of the aggregate choices they made. Yamaha required every piano to undergo a "Service Bond" procedure. There was a card supplied with each piano. The technician was supposed to remove the action, re-align all hammers, tighten all flanges and at the very least, adjust the capstans on each and every piano after 6 months. Yamaha paid the dealer $40 for each of those cards which were returned.

The "Service Bond" was never intended to be a "free tuning" and was supposed to be performed the second time the piano was serviced in the home or wherever the piano went, not the first. The dealer, however was mainly interested in profits and competition. The dealer paid those technicians $40 to do the first "free" tuning. The technicians checked all of the boxes and fraudulently signed their names to work they had never done, time after time, year after year.

I do have a degree of sympathy for a technician who would be required to perform 2-3 hours of work for only $40. Who would ever do that? So, as you might expect, they spent about a half hour turning some tuning pins to result in a reverse-well tuning at whatever pitch the piano had sunk to.

The dealer had sold Yamaha pianos to virtually all area schools, both public and private. Many times over, the comment from the music teacher was that the first "free" tuning had not been satisfactory. Those teachers were not required to engage RPTs but it was a strong suggestion from the Area Arts Administrator. The teachers, one by one, independently of each other but perhaps in consultation with each other, found the technicians who made their pianos sound best, play best and whose tunings lasted the longest. Virtually all of them chose RPTs who tuned non-equal temperaments. Dampp-chaser systems were installed and maintained. Actions were tightened, aligned and regulated.

The private homes, schools, churches, restaurants and hotels in this area have all mostly been serviced by RPTs who tune non-equal temperaments for about two decades. The Yamaha dealer is long out of business and so are its former technicians.

The theory of ET, as I recall, goes back to ancient China, many centuries before the modern piano was ever conceived. In the mid 19th Century, Helmholtz published a list of theoretical frequencies for it. In the early 20th Century, William Braide-White wrote a book on how to tune it. Most technicians bought and studied that book over most of the 20th Century. Well-Temperament or any other kind of non-equal temperament became rarely heard of or was unknown completely.

In the 20th Century, there was only one tuning, ET. Nothing else was ever talked about, known, considered or even remotely possible as far as anyone who tuned a piano was concerned. The problem was and still is, that the ET which is imagined only in the mind, as a theoretical idea, most of the time, never really happened.

Today, 10 years into the 21st Century, true ET does, in fact happen more often than it used to for most of the 20th Century. Aural tuning has improved mostly through the presence of PTG and schools which now teach methods which came about solely from the existence of PTG. ETDs of course, now allow any tuner to tune ET to a satisfactory degree.

I witness nearly every day, this thread included, the hypothesis that ET is the "holy grail". It can be the one and only perfect solution. I used to believe that too. But I have moved beyond that hypothesis over two decades ago. I know what the reality is. I know what the pianists prefer. I go with what I know works for me and what makes me a very fine living.

Bill I can promise you that most of the European tuners have never heard of William Braid White ! we have similar documents here, but mostly the tuning is being told by apprenticing, the basis of the formation came from the piano factories and the tuners that worked there.

Even talking about the size of octaves and partial match in tuning is an analytic point of view which is not used here, what is told is good tone, good octaves, recognizing the good toning interval,and listening , listening, listening. No explanation is given on why suddenly, that octave is good, but you learn to recognize the alignment of partials between the 2 notes and the tone quality it provides (indeed all the apprenticing is octave/stretch based).

Yesterday I talked a little about tuning and tempering with the professional pianist, that had some views about it (which is not really often).

He stated that older temperament have their utility if you want to play the music related to it, (in the tonality they accept)
That when playing classical music the quality of the 5th and 12th prevails, while tunings more based on even progression of RBI intervals but with less attention given to the SBI quality could be more suited for modern music.

I have talked of the organ effect and he agreed that it should be magnificent, but if at the expense of modulation in farther tonalities he stated that it would not then suitable for daily use.

moving from an octave based idea to other directions may help to obtain a more pure output. I believe that we have to be told how the instrument are tuned and have comparison provided so to decide which suits the best which music.

Then, on a performance piano, or one used in many different venues, I see no possibility to change temperament then fight with stability for weeks.

So this limitation is a huge one.

I would really like if we managed to elaborate on this first posted thread's issue:

..."what is difficult about acknowledging modern ETs, i.e. new algebraic geometrical models, new degrees of harmoniousness, new tonal effects, new spectral fusions, and accepting that also 12th root of two ET could evolve, actually it has evolved."...

So here the point is not whether ET or any other temperament is the holy gral, but:

While 12th root of two ET has never been practicable, Modern ETs today are finally practicable. Moreover, Modern ETs have new degrees of harmoniousness and new tonal effects, due to new spectral fusions.

Why not wanting to get to know about all this?
Why keeping on relating ET to 12th root of two, when today ET has evolved?

For what I read, it seems that ET can only be 12th root of two, and this is why I get the impression that Time stopped with it.

Pleas tell me, would anyone talk about "true UT"?

Actually, Modern ETs can well prove that the pure-octaves ET Theory was inadeguate (for practical tuning), Modern ETs can well prove that the theoretical octave geometry was an arbitrary assumption.

We also know how difficult, for all tuners, the tuning of 12th root of two was and is.

Sholud not we stop talking about true ET and open to the new performances of Modern ETs?

Regards, a.c.

.

Kamin, you report and write:

..."I have talked of the organ effect and he agreed that it should be magnificent, but if at the expense of modulation in farther tonalities he stated that it would not then suitable for daily use."...

Talking about Modern ETs, Stopper stated quite recently that his pure 12ths tuning gains that kind of effect (organ) on any key, preserving any change in tonality.

Do not you think this could be, and maybe should be, enough for wanting to know more about ET's evolution and more about this Modern pure-12ths ET aural tuning?

I remember you asking for practical directions and I agree, I think they should be given (for free).

..."moving from an octave based idea to other directions may help to obtain a more pure output."...

It certainly does. But, say that we do not consider Cordier's pro experience, Stopper's experience, your experience, my experience, say we do not consider any pro tuner's experience, who has ever been able to tune Historical ET and its pure-octaves theoretical base? Nobody. In my opinion, all tuners have directed towards ET's evolution, towards Modern ET Theories and models.

..."I believe that we have to be told how the instrument are tuned and have comparison provided so to decide which suits the best which music."...

I agree (sob!), and I ask: where is the problem nowadays? Tuners could easly be told. Why Modern ETs are meeting (here, in my opinion) with resistance? Just because it is not admitted that ET could evolve? Why are we still talking about "true ET" and yet referring to Historical 12th root of two ET?

a.c.

.

Alfredo, the only interest I have in ET is to teach it well enough to novices so they can pass the PTG exam, never to tune it for any pianist. I also work on the perfection of ET when I conduct a "master tuning" for one of the PTG exams but I never work in those ways when I tune any piano for the public. I do not think of tuning of any kind in terms of mathematics, so any such discussion is beyond my understanding. Therefore, I cannot participate in that.

Kamin, from what you say, the teaching of piano tuning is 40 years behind what it is in the USA. The only way anyone can learn it is from a teacher and lots of practice. That keeps the number of piano technicians who are really good very small because only a few people can learn that way. However, I find it difficult to believe, especially in Germany and Austria that technicians there are not just as familiar with the same advanced concepts as we are in North America.

The concept of octave sizes and that ET can be tuned within any size octave is something only recently understood. There is no mention of it in older books on tuning. It is something I have come to understand only by my association and participation with PTG and working on the tuning exams. I wrote a PTG Journal article about that 2 years ago. The only books on piano tuning which have any material about octave sizes or types are not the basic books but the advanced concept books such as "On Pitch" by Rick Baldassin.

There were teachers such as Virgil Smith who taught that the technician should learn to listen to the "whole sound". He did not use CM3s, only 4ths & 5ths and he would only tune a fine grand piano, usually a Steinway. He did not listen to isolated partials and advised technicians not to do that. I used to attend his sessions in the 1980's. He tuned a beautiful sounding piano back then. From what I know today, he did not tune a "pure" temperament octave. It was always stretched slightly beyond the point of true beatlessness. He could and would only explain this in very vague terms; not the way it is explained today.

In the last decade, his health has deteriorated. The last report I heard from a technician who attended perhaps his last session was that he could no longer tune a true ET. PTG no longer hires him to teach piano tuning. He recently wrote a very small, thin book on piano tuning. It does not contain and advanced concepts, only the vague, "whole sound" idea from which any technician wishing to improve knowledge and skills can gain nothing of practical value.

Similarly, Franz Mohr would teach piano tuning at PTG functions. He always got a very large audience. Everyone wanted to see how Steinway's best technician would tune the piano. Of course, he would only tune a large Steinway piano. He would often say that he is the world's luckiest piano technician because he did not have to tune any other kind of piano. He used a temperament octave from A3-A4 which very few people used. He tuned only 4ths & 5ths but had quick and odd ways to check that which nobody could follow or understand.

He could not explain what he did. He could only use vague terms such as, "You have to make it shine, you know". Nobody who attended his sessions really learned much if anything at all which they could use in their own practice. They only got some inspiration from it. There was no information about what to do with a small piano. The book he wrote was a pleasure to read but contained really only anecdotes about his life as a technician and absolutely no useful information about how to tune any piano. I also witnessed Franz Mohr tune a piano in a non-ET but he denied that was true. For him, ET was his only model but he did admit that he was not perfect. He is a very religious man. So, to him, no human being is ever perfect. He only ever attempts to tune ET and if the results are something else, it is not what he intended, it is only what actually happened on that particular occasion.

Both of these technicians always said the same thing the pianist you asked about temperament said. Most pianists in this country, most piano technicians and most music educators would say the same thing. I have often communicated with a very intelligent scholar in Mexico. He says that virtually all pianists and music educators in his country only know of ET and believe that there is no other possibility for the modern piano. Yet, what the piano tuners actually do is almost never really ET. When I asked Franz Mohr about non-ET, he said the same thing you said, "Then, on a performance piano, or one used in many different venues, I see no possibility to change temperament then fight with stability for weeks."

However, there are other technicians who have taught other ways to tune pianos. Certainly, people in France did not read Braide-White's book but they would have read whatever was available in France. The world has long been sold on ET and ET only. Nearly everyone believes it is the only way to tune a piano. The problem with that, as I see it, is that many technicians have not been able to use the information presented in such material adequately or correctly. Their results are imperfect. They firmly believe what they do is ET and they believe only in ET. That is very clear to me and quite well understood. However, their lack of knowledge about any other possibilities prevents them from ever knowing that what they actually do is often not really ET. In far too many cases, it never was, is not now and never will be ET until they learn more information and better techniques.

In my area, many of us have long been far beyond the narrow concept of ET only. Some of us never tune any pianos in ET but we never encounter any of the problems which all of the ET only technicians only theorize would happen. We simply do not believe those theories and we ignore completely all of the warnings because our experience over many years has told us they simply are not true. There are also other technicians in other parts of the USA (and I know some in Canada) who never or almost never tune in ET.

There are dozens of them just among those I know of. However, if you consider that perhaps 50 or fewer technicians (or maybe even 100-200)do what I do and believe what I do, out of the approximately 4,000 technicians who belong to PTG and however many more technicians there may be, yes, that is a very small minority. Just because we are a minority, it does not mean that we are all wrong and the rest are all right. We do what we do because we believe in what we do and we find acceptance of it. There has always been a growing number of technicians who have expressed interest in these concepts during the entire time I have worked with them. Some have tried different ideas and embraced them, others have chosen to only occasionally perform non-ETs in certain circumstances.

From the top down, PTG itself used to have the same beliefs and attitude about non-ET but it long ago came to understand that the use of non-ET represented an expansion of knowledge and skills, not a digression. It chose to honor the person most responsible for advocating that expansion with its highest honor at the last convention. PTG still teaches ET and still uses ET as the model for its exams and probably always will, even though ET was never specified as a rule. PTG regularly presents programs on how to tune non-ETs and also offers performances in non-ETs at its events. It has done so for many years although certainly not at each and every event each and every time.

From the beginning, the PTG Standardized Tuning Exam was based upon what most tuners practiced. The tolerances for it were based upon what the very best technicians could do at the high end and about what 50% of technicians could barely or not quite accomplish at the low end. Since almost all tuners tuned ET and only thought in terms of ET, the tuning exams have always been based on ET but once again, ET is not specified. PTG left open the possibility that tuning could evolve to a point where the majority of tuners do something else.

The tolerances for the exam have been raised over time to make it more difficult. When it was seen that too many technicians could pass the exam too easily, the tolerances were raised. The exam "master tuning" model has also evolved. Technicians consult with each other about how to create an ET model which is closer to perfection each time they do it. They don't do that with mathematical theory on paper or with calculators. However, they do compare the statistical results and ponder the numerical results of purely aural tuning and look for ways to improve aural tuning. The octave size analysis has been one of those recent areas of research.

I am not against purely mathematical analysis of tuning, ET or otherwise. I simply don't have the mathematical skills to participate in that nor do I have much interest in acquiring them. I also am not against the exploration of the effects octave size and/or stretching techniques have on ET. I know there are differences which technicians and pianists can perceive but I also believe that to combine that knowledge with other ideas for temperament provides for a much broader area to explore. To me, limiting oneself only to ET and its perfection is to impose a very unnecessary constraint which denies the world of music the many possibilities which the piano has to offer.

An excellent book, filled with explanation that reveals itself like the peeling of an onion. Its been my nightstand read for many months.

RPD

The pipe organ effect is not, nor ever has been a goal for tuning. It is simply an observation of what happens when the octaves are tuned in a particular way. When those octaves are combined with equal beating M3s and M6s the way they are in the EBVT III, the effect is truly stunning.

Yes, I heard a hint of that effect when I heard the Stopper tuning but it was not the same as when the piano is tuned in the EBVT or EBVT III.

The effect only happens really when a long C Major arpeggio is played across the entire keyboard with the damper pedal held and the piano is allowed to ring. That is not playing music. It is nothing more than a curiosity.

That is not to say that my customers are unimpressed by it, they most certainly are. For them, it is a confirmation that the piano is now very well tuned. So, the recent mockery and ridicule there was against Rafael who knows what the pipe organ effect really is as well as its value, was particularly insulting. At the same time that it was insulting, it also blatantly demonstrated the ignorance of the person who chose to mock and ridicule.

There was also an example in a musical context which Patrick offered when the pipe organ effect was briefly heard. It just so happened that his musical example captured that effect. He enjoyed the experience and so did I. I can't imagine any pianist who might hear that same effect when the context of music may cause it to exhibit itself who would want the piano technician to eliminate it.

Tuning the piano in standard ET with the octaves tuned the way they most often are will not yield that effect. Therefore, most people have never heard it and probably never will. That will not persuade any of us who know how to produce it from doing so. There will never be any pianist for whom we ever tune a piano who will ever ask us to change the tuning so that the pipe organ effect cannot be heard.

You all will get a chance to hear exactly what that effect is and you will all understand exactly why it has been called the "pipe organ effect" very soon next month when I go to Grandpianoman's home to tune his piano. We will make sound clips of that effect alone. We will also play various selections of different music of different styles in various keys with all possible modulations for everyone to hear and to form their own opinion.

While I certainly don't expect that by putting the sound files on this forum that suddenly the entire world will want to have its pianos tuned in the EBVT III, I do expect that over time, there will be more and more technicians who become interested in it as they hear them.

Here is one such message from last Friday, the name and other identifying information has been redacted for that person's privacy:

Date: Friday, January 15, 2010 7:13 PM
From: charles *****
To: BillBremmerRPT
Subject: Thanks!
Size: 7 KB
Mr. Bremmer:

My name is Charles *******. I live in ******, and have been in the Tuning business for +20 years, but have only seriously pursued building a business for the past 5. I am an associate in the PTG in ******, and I service the northwest part of *****, *****, and into ***** on occasion. I am a retired school principal, and continue to teach band after 32 years. I lack a dissertation in the completion of a Doctorate in Education. I am a performing church and concert organist, and this year am Grand Master of Masons in the state of *****. I have been the principal organist for the ******. for +30 years. I have been fortunate to study and perform piano for many years with many outstanding teachers and collegues. After my tenure as Grand Master, I am going to complete my quest for RPT status in memory of my mentor, Robert *****, RPT, who began my desire to be an outstanding tuner/tech, and was my friend and hero.

I do not get to attend the PTG meetings in ***** since they meet while I teach school, but I have developed a great friendship with our President, and consult with him frequently.

I began this letter with a quick bio to defend the statement that I TRULY APPRECIATE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT YOU MAKE on the Piano World Forums. I have quietly studied the content for a number of years, and have received a tremendous amount of knowledge that has improved my skill. I have tuned your EBVT both with tunelab in the temperament, and aurally, and I assure you that as a pianist with almost 50 years of experience, it makes the music and the piano come alive. [Bold face added for emphasis].

I just feel that I need you to know that there are many techs who aspire to perfection that read and listen to the content who will probably never post on that site, but still appreciate your unselfish efforts to improve a profession that was unapproachable not that many years ago.

You have to contend with a few "techs" who sling crap in an effort to improve their station. Please do not let them get you down, and remember, you are doing great things to improve the craft.

Sincerely,

Charles *****

These kind of messages are frequent. The traffic on my website is particularly impressive, especially the sources from where that traffic originated and the number of downloads of specific information there have been. This is true for ET tuning methods as well as the EBVT.

So, I am not the least bit concerned about being seen as a "maverick" tuner with unconventional ideas who will soon fade into obscurity.

Today, I received this message:

Date: Sunday, January 17, 2010 5:10 AM
From: Ken *****
To: BillBremmerRPT
Subject: Piano Technician mentoring
Size: 5 KB
Greetings Mr. Bremmer --

I am a recent addition to the world of Piano Technicians. I have been through the course from the ***** School (5 years to complete, but that is a longer story) and have applied for membership in the PTG. Last week I attended the local meeting of the PTG/Madison chapter and had my application signed by *****. I desire to work for the RPT, and would like to take you up on the offer of assistance in study as stated on your website....

I live relatively close to Madison so travel is not a problem. My schedule is very open (I am a statistic of the economy) so whenever it suits you, I would be grateful for your guidance.

I have decided that being a Piano Technician is my new career, so you can rest assured that I take this quite seriously and with great interest. I have three pianos of my own (one is a player) that I work on and I have done some work for others.

I look forward to your reply.

With Best Regards,

Ken *****

I am quite interested, actually to find out just what this person's temperament sounds like after 5 years of study. Considering the school he mentioned, I know that the method is a 4ths & 5ths sequence. If he can do a reasonably good temperament using that method, I will work with him on how he can improve tuning using that method.

If, however the results are actually reverse well as I fully expect them to be, we will start all over and use the ET via Marpurg. I won't say one word about the EBVT unless he asks about it. If he does, I will tell him that I will teach him to tune that after he becomes an RPT. I will not charge this student one red cent to tutor him. It will be my contribution to PTG.

There is nothing difficult about acknowledging modern ET's - except that in all the pages written, there hasn't been anything new at the tuning level about these new approaches. Simply an ET with a different width to the octave. While this may be new "across the pond", technicians over here have been experimenting with this since the early 1980's or before.

Ron Koval
chicagoland

I am not convinced that there is anything new at all, except for the proliferation of electronic devices. They have redefined the way that we talk about things, without necessarily changing anything that people are doing, now or in the past.

I respectfully disagree, the octave begin to be a side effect when the tuning is based on another tempering than 12.

Octaves are not "tuned" in Cordier, 10ths are (for what I know) they are checked in the same way that we check 5ths 4ths in usual tuning (or 10 ths 17ths, depending which method we use)

Hello ALfredo,
(sorry I forget to answer ) of course I am interested in by different valuable approach that could conciliate the theory
and the practical way to do things. I am not sure that it would be easy to pass those kind of concepts.

The idea to have advice of the actual acoustician and research people is a good one.

They may however state that mostly piano tuning is involved (which does not seem to raise a lot of interest those days !).

Indeed I am impatient to listen and to have a close understanding of a different way to do things.

I also believe that justness is instrument (and conditions) based, so theorizing may open a window on a part of the subject only.

I have promised myself to give holidays to my estimated colleagues and refrain to write as extensively , even if I appreciate the discussions. I'll keep an eye and answer only if really need.
Yes I like to have more insight and at last more recordings of Bernhard Stopper tunings (as I am expecting that EVBT tuning record).

I am surprised than so little of the forum members are willing to record some of the pianos they work on.
Discussions are good, but listening is more interesting to me, be it with headsets on a computer card with a MP3.

Pianos, are used to play music, so thats what we should be able to show in the end it is easier those days than ever.

See you soon !

ISaac

Alfredo:

I think you are doing what some other posters here also do: construct a straw man that you can knock down to prove a point.

As soon as iH is considered, twelfth root of two ET along with any root of anything ET is shown to be an inadequate model.

I wonder why we can’t get beyond thinking of tuning theory in this way. Perhaps it would be harder on the self-promotion aspect of the discussions.

Let us not forget that ET can be constructed within virtually any conceivably sized octave from slightly narrow to wide enough that the 5ths become pure. All of the classic books teach only one possibility but tests for the octaves were not understood as well as they are today. For example, on one page, Braide-White gives the test for a 4:2 octave but on another, he shows a test for a 6:3 octave, apparently believing them to be equivalent.

Indeed, they both can sound very similar on some pianos. I can imagine that in Braide-White's time, a large, low inharmonicity piano would yield very little, if any aurally perceptible difference between a 4:2 and a 6:3 octave in the midrange. When working with other examiners on a moderate inharmonicity piano and trying to find the compromise between a 4:2 and 6:3 octave, the tests applied to each for the A3-A4 octave would both sound about the same to all three of us. When that happened, we left the octave tuned that way. If we were to narrow or widen the octave even slightly, one test would favor over the other but when we found the point where they both sounded alike, we deemed it to be the best compromise. Ideally, neither test would be perfect, the 4:2 would be slightly wide and the 6:3 slightly narrow but sometimes, we could not really get that.

Up until about 12 years ago, I thought in terms of ET being only one possibility. After all, the word "equal" is one that can't take a modifier. A temperament cannot be "more equal" or "less equal", it is either equal or it is not. Of course, a temperament can be almost equal and for that, we use the Latin word, "quasi" (equal).

Back then, Kent Swafford pointed out to me that a temperament can still be equal, regardless of the size of octave. That statement had slipped my mind until in 1999, at a Chicago Chapter PTG meeting, Virgil Smith tuned two Steinway Model M pianos, one with the temperament octave about 1/2 beat per second narrow and the other with the temperament octave about 1/2 beat per second wide. There was clearly a difference in character between the two pianos. Virgil said at the time that his usual practice was to tune the wider octave but for a very few customers who did not seem to like the results of that technique, he would tune using the narrowed octave.

In sound files posted by Grandpianoman recently, we heard a piano tuned with the RCT in default stretch mode which I presume to be the compromise between the 4:2 and 6:3 octave, although it could have been as narrow as 4:2, I don't know for sure without inquiring. The other was the Stopper tuning. I did hear a distinct difference between the two and my preference was for the Stopper tuning. I liked what I perceived as "clarity". Others seemed to prefer the RCT tuning, calling it "warm" or "mellow".

So, there is no doubt that there are effects to be heard and appreciated or disliked as the case may be when one establishes the central octave size when tuning ET. It is clear to me that Alfredo has found to his own satisfaction an octave size that he finds appealing. Now, from what I gather, he does not think in terms of a single octave but rather a double octave. Whatever the size of that double octave is, all of the pitches within it are equally placed. Apparently, Herr Stopper thinks in terms of an octave and 5th and from what I gather, that interval is beatless and all pitches are placed equally within it.

Each of the above will yield single octaves however, of a distinct width and they will be somewhat wider than absolutely beatless. As I see it, they cannot be very different from each other although they are probably not exactly the same. It seems to me that whatever the difference may be is more intellectual than anything else, the thought process behind creating the construction with the results of both being fairly close, if not exactly alike. Either thought process would seem to be as valid as the other. Only the satisfaction of the technician who uses the method and the recipient of the work, the pianist matter in the end.

If a performing artist went one day to Italy and Alfredo tuned the piano, the artist would use it and like it. If he went the next day to Germany and Herr Stopper tuned the piano, the artist would probably like his work just as well. Other factors would naturally be present such as different makes and models of pianos. So, a direct comparison between the Stopper tuning and Alfredo's CHAS method is virtually impossible. It would still be next to impossible even if the two pianos were side by side because they would still be two different pianos, even if they were the same make and model.

Well, ok - let's see some data. It should be pretty easy for those of you that think that you have something very new to list the tuning targets for a common piano model - we can discuss the partials to list as well as the model of piano that we all have available. Then we can look at how that compares to other methods of calcualting a tuning as well as standard aural approches and see the results...

Ron Koval
chicagoland