Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum My Piano in EBVT III

Has this been verified by analyzing recordings?

Ridiculous! The “ET only people” merely express what they prefer. You continue to insult people that have a different preference than you. It reminds me very much of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

Well, some samples:

Teddy Wilson in 1941.(No video, but the audio is fairly good.) I hear something different from ET, but I don't have the ears to tell if it's a Well temp.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUQdpoMaVhs

This next one sounds more like ET. Surely not the same tuning as the first? Not sure of the date. Great later Billie accompanied by Jimmy Rowles, her favorite pianist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQlehVpcAes&feature=related

And I have to add "As Time Goes By" in Casablanca, from 1942. Sounds like ET but with something else? Or does it just need tuning...Only about 40 seconds of the piano, though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vThuwa5RZU&feature=related

And those Chico Marx piano moments are all online, too. Hard to judge the tuning? :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCiRSDPIzk or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZyhosgpS48&feature=related

But this could become a long, long list. (And Lauren Bacall was a bad choice for imagining a singer beside an EBVT piano--I'd forgotten that her singing voice wasn't great. I'd like to hear Billie Holiday beside a piano with this tuning. Couldn't quickly find a Holiday-Wilson recording without other instruments drowning out the piano, however.)

I do hear something different in the 1941 Wilson. He might be a good person to check the recordings of, since he was playing from the '30s up until his death. Might provide a snapshot history of jazz piano tuning, at least.

Jake:

It is good that these are available. Some just sound like poor octaves, maybe deliberately. It seemed to me that the piano in the Superbowl Sonata commercial was deliberately mistuned. If someone is going to declare that pianos were tuned a certain way, it should be based on an objective study of the information that is available. I am sure old recordings can be analyzed. Maybe a study has been done.

It occurred to me, too, that the Wilson piano, the first piece, might just have unusual or narrow octaves.

I'm trying to imagine the steps for a formal study of the subject. Finding older recordings of say Waller and Johnson and early Wilson might be a starting point, since there are many recordings and thus probably some slow pieces here and there. Would a piano have to be tuned to match a recording to really determine the tuning, or could you just capture as many notes as possible here and there, find their exact pitch with software, and then determine the tuning?

Jeff, do you know when you will complete this study? (Could we get that by this weekend...?)

Even at best, old recordings may vary in speed enough to distort the tuning. If you want to look into them, I suggest listening to someone who was known to have super-accurate perfect pitch, like Josef Hoffman. However, I suspect some of those recordings were "corrected" to A-440, which he did not use. (I wonder if the change led do his drinking problems.)

Thanks for sending those . That one sound like a good ET (or quasi"ET" as there may be some slight differences, for some notes I have seen that often and it is not noticed when music is played.)
The particular sound and a tuning very nicely open yet, I tried to find a reason why (may be old tuners knew better how to tune than us, there may be more piano factories in those times, and and many where also near from the sources, coming from Germany or whatever European country, while now the musical taste is somewhat polluted since the young age, by TV show and lift music ! )

There is particular clarity of tone despite a "just enough stretch" and a pure medium (not really widely open but the tone does not ask for it) . in the treble that is what gives that particular acidity, as the piano does not ask for mot of stretch there (In RCT, I recall that the concert Pleyel had a "negative iH" in the treble, I never was able too understand what it means but it was clearly audible when one had to tune in that region.

I begin to believe that it was mostly due to the better quality of the piano wire from those times, purer metal, less iH. The tone wanted was also less powerful than, now, hence, again, less iH.

But the string is at the origin of piano tone, the soundboard come just after.

A freind have a "collection" of Steinway's and Bechsteins from 1900 to 1960 , it is very interesting how the evolving of tone can be heard (most have their original strings) . The tone was very rich and little by little it begin to get more e"pure" with less partials and more power (less "barrel tone and less "defects" too).

But simply tuning in standard ET one of those pianos give that kind of tone (a little restrained of course as the wire age and get hard, but the basis of the spectra remains, I believe)
The recording method also add some texture of course.

It may be not too difficult to test a little the tunings, but better have records than videos, so the file can be used in a spectra analyze software, and checked, with Tunelab or similar.

I am changing the stringing on a 1930 Pleyel, in Roslau wire I have way more iH than originally 0.96 while it was 0.56, that is on that piano that the 12th coming from A440 need 5Hz to be in tuner "just"

To find a similar open tone I'll have to use softer wire AND to lessen the thickness a lot the tension then comes from 750 to 550N in the mediums.
If not , I have a strong but unpleasing tone, it loose most of its light and quality, sound "pinched".

Jake:

I do not intend to even look for a study. That is up to the person that is saying that pianos where tuned a certain way, that is, if the person is looking for truth and not just implication.

BDB:

The recording speed would not matter when the question is the temperament. Wow and flutter could certainly be corrected for, also.

Thanks for the Billie Holiday links, it was nice to listen and see that.

To me all the tunings are in ET, but the ones of the Marx brothers who sound loose, and may be with less tempered white keys. But in others records from the Marx Bro's I did not heard that.

in that one B- C is large - It happens , to me, because of the sequence used (is it Braid White?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5MCn2juMS0&NR=1 but is it a Well temperament ?

In Germany, France and Italy a A fork is used , then the sequence is between E and E or F and F, or E-4 (I did not heard of a A-A sequence since Chas) . Then if some 5ths may be less tempered they will be A E ,B F# , c# G# , etc...
I giess it is easier to be tempted to tune a "reverse well when beginning with a C fork, but , I guess it may have happen often because of a highly in harmonic tone that push the tuner to enlarge the first octave more than necessary (that plus the security for drift). I also noticed that many verticals have a somehow acid tone, this is also the sign of more iH.
When measuring with tunelab, a plucked string will have more iH than a played one, and a hard hammer note will have more iH than a soft hammer one. The apprentice tuners in factory learn first to chip (plucking the strings) , they work with full ih. That learn to open the octaves to the most, it is a good school.

Sorry I derivate completely from the topic.

I believe I could do that by listening plus using an EDT, the ability to stop and play back a certain note may suffice.
An editing software, as Audacity is enough to do that.
Ears when in analytic mode, can catch many things, but yest it have to be backed up (or instance the C' being higher than the rest in the last link, this can be seen in Tunelab, (or whatever EDT software) and measured in cts - with a small precision but enough to have an idea of the level of deviation. the display have to be regulated to stop , and the offset noted.

I just tried on the Marx bros (with orchestra, not easy) . I traced to a lot of stretch beginning at C7 th B-C too large sensation.- it may be around 1 cts ors so, not much) B3 is a tad low, B3-C4 then is a tad large, but B4C5 is normal - pitch seem to be 438 (does not mena much in fact)

I would need MP3 or wav files to do that more precisely.



It may, however, take some time ...

Regardless of what is found out, any historical study of actual tunings from the early 20th century would be good. It could supplement the Broadwood manuals from the 19th century.

Come to think of it, would companies that existed then and are still extant, such as Steinway, have similar tuning manuals from those decades or tuning records? Surely they have a library. (And I would think that they would make some effort to retain documents such as tuning records for well-known performers' pianos.) Some of you here have studied at Steinway. Any contacts who could be contacted?

Cinamonbear, you're welcome!

In the end, what really matters is what sounds good to me. I am enjoying the new sounds coming from my piano with this EBVT III. It's opened another 'sonic' window.

grandpianoman,

The sound is great. Sorry if I helped to sidetrack things. We just went off into the subject of how long Well tunings lasted, and before I knew it, I was posting links to the Marx brothers. I do hope you understand that no disrespect towards the tuning or the great sound that you get from the piano was intended--I love watching Chico have fun on the piano.(And we did get to see Ingrid Bergman along the way.)

Do you think of EBVT as a sound that you recognize from older music?

Jake, not a problem! I have seen this happen on PW before...going off track...actually your sojourn still had to do with tuning, so no harm done.

You know, I don't think I have enough of an experience with older piano music to give an opinion one way or the other. I am an avid audiophile as well, and listening to old piano recordings with all the wow & flutter just grates on my musical senses. That's why I am a big fan of www.zenph.com They can take these old piano recordings, and allow us to hear them on a modern piano with 100% accuracy. I wish I could let you hear the Zenph Glen Gould and Art Tatum for the LX on my piano in this EBVT III, it's great, but it's a copyright issue to put them on the web, which I understand.

I do know that this EBVT III, to my ears, has a richer, more complex sound from the music, any music for that matter, than in ET. I am enjoying the change, and I as I am able to more finely tune the piano in EBVT III, and it stays in tune, it's even more enjoyable.

When Bill was here, and he was finished with his final pass, he sat down and played a few pieces and chords, I was in awe of the purity of the sound. Randy Potter said basically the same thing. It had a purity of tone, (not just from Bill's excellent unisons) that was undeniably great. Then as we played a variety of music from the Ampico and LX of which I was very familiar with, it became evident that I was hearing things I had never heard before. The harmonies, it's complexities, the richness in the bass, and the beautiful extended and airy treble section, were much more evident than I had heard in ET. Also, some of the music on the LX and Ampico, when it would arrive at a certain point, would always sound not quite right, but in EBVT, those same sections sound correct...interesting.

Thanks, GP, I am glad you are enjoying it and that it sounds right to you! You are the person I did it for and that is what matters to me. I recall that we joked about who would say what about it on here. So, when I said that I already knew what they would say and didn't care, I meant it. Either of us could publish the actual data for your tuning but I don't think we should for two reasons: it is specific for your piano and your piano alone and there would only be one comment about it: it is all wrong! The mathematical theories would prove it is wrong too! So, let 'em just wonder about it and keep 'em guessing.

As for proving that early 20th Century pianos were not tuned in ET, how about proving to me that they were. I haven't heard one yet that comes anywhere close to today's broadcast quality standards. To somehow believe that they were all a perfect ET but the unisons were bad, the octaves were bad and the hot lights made them go out during the recording is all grasping at straws to believe that the almighty ET is now, always was and always will be the only way anyone ever tuned a piano. It just is not true.

I had two interesting experiences yesterday, both first time customers. Upon finishing the first of these, the lady commented, "That is the very best this piano has ever sounded to me! I can say that without hesitation." That was after playing the piano in ALL the keys too and I do mean all, not just the mild ones. Really, if even one of my customers ever said anything like what some of the people on here have said (and I knew they would say because I know that they already have their minds made up about it), I might pursue things a little differently. They don't, however. They never do. They only shower me with compliments and they refer me to others.

The second was a nice Mason & Hamlin model A in a beautiful home. It turns out that the lady hosted gatherings of the symphony league which is the financial support group for our local symphony. She said, "I had this piano tuned only recently by someone else but the symphony conductor (with whom you have worked) was here and he said it did not sound right". I listened to what was there. Sure enough, it was reverse well. The C4-E4 M3 was the very fastest beating interval by far. The high treble octaves also varied incredibly in width from very narrow to very wide. It took two passes to tune each section of the piano even though the piano was at standard pitch. It would have taken two passes even if I had tuned it in ET.

Someone recently said they thought it had to do with using a C fork but I don't think it did at all. The A3 and A4 were right on pitch. What happens is the tuner begins tuning 4ths & 5ths from A3. The first interval tuned is A3-E4 and it is tuned too close to pure. That means A4 is too sharp. Then D4 is tuned too close to pure, so it is too flat. Then G3 is tuned from D4 too close to pure so it is too flat. Then C4 is tuned from G3 too close to pure, so C4 is too flat. C4 is too flat and E4 is too sharp, therefore, the C4-E4 M3 ends up being 20 or more cents wide (instead of the 14 cents it should be). There were no checks to use leading up to that error. At that point, the tuner could recognize that the interval sounds overly wide and do something about it but obviously they usually don't.

The path to reverse well continues: From C4 which is too flat, F3 is tuned as a too pure 5th, so F3 is too flat and the result is that the F3-A3 M3 is too wide, also far wider than 14 cents. If the M3/M6 check is used, both intervals may sound similar as they are supposed to but both of them are far too fast (just as it is seen in the last You Tube video I posted on the Reverse Well thread). F4 is tuned from F3, a "pure" octave, of course, just like the books all say it should be.

The road to ruin continues as A#3 is tuned from F3 as a too pure 4th. The A#3-D4 M3 is way too fast. Now D#4 is tuned as a too pure 4th from A#3. There is nothing to check that with, so G#3 is tuned as a 5th. The G#3-C4 M3 is too narrow and therefore beats too slowly. C#4 is tuned from G#3 and the A3-C#4 M3 beats too fast. F#3 is tuned from C#4 and the F#3-A#3 M3 beats very gently. B3 is tuned from F#3 and the G3-B3 M3 ends up 20 cents wide but the B3-D#4 M3 sounds as sweet as syrup.

That is how it typically happens and it is firmly believed to be ET. The Braide-White and all of the other 4ths & 5ths tuning books deliberately leave out any information whatsoever about what a well temperament is. If they say anything at all, they equate it to ET which is not true. So, tuner after tuner after tuner have done some version of the above for their entire career and believe it to be ET. The very notion of an unequal temperament is disturbing to their way of thinking, even though that is what they always do.

They won't try to learn another way to construct ET, the 4ths and 5ths sequence seems so logical to them, tuning contiguous major thirds does not. They have their way of doing it and prefer to mock and ridicule any other method. All of their clients have always heard the piano tuned this way and grown accustomed to the backwards and imbalanced harmony. So, it is little wonder to me why the way I tune sounds so beautiful when my clients hear it. The harmony, for the first time in their lives sounds as it should.

These clients have no built in sensitivity to the slightest deviation from ET as some tuners on here do. They have never heard a perfect ET, so they have no reference point for that. When they hear their music come alive in a way they never had before, it is truly an epiphany for them.

By the way, I very much enjoyed the theme from Schindler's List. The dark and disturbing sound of the minor key in the beginning is exactly what I expect to hear from this music. After all, that film is about genocide. Playing the same music in ET would take the edge off of the way it is really meant to sound. So, despite the claim that all modern music is composed with ET in mind, modern era composers still choose key signatures correctly, the same way they did in past centuries. It doesn't matter to me that the film soundtrack is in ET. What film critic hasn't pointed out what could have been done better in the very best of films? The way that music sounds in the EBVT III is the way it should sound and the way it should have been recorded.

The Mason & Hamlin lady will host another party this weekend where there will be professional musicians who will play her piano. Did I even once think that maybe I should tune it in ET because somebody might notice that is not ET and complain about it or say anything like what has been said on here? No, I didn't and I surely am not the least bit concerned about it.

Come on now, Bill. It is up to you to prove your statements, not for me to disprove them.

But there always comes up the question of what is ET? If we take the most strict, mathematical definition of ET, then no piano ever has or ever will be tuned in ET. And if we take the broadest definition, then Bach tuned in ET because all key signatures were available. Even my practical definition of M3s and M6s being progressive is not very easy to achieve. I often cannot do so because of the condition of the pinblock and the rendering of the strings. There is much to be said for Jorgensen’s definition. If I remember correctly, it is what most tuners achieve when they attempt ET and is characterized by generally progressive RBIs.

So I would say that the intent of most tuners in the late 19th and early 20th century was ET, and that the result of most of these tunings is the definition of ET at that time. To apply a more strict or modern definition of ET to that time period and saying it is not ET is as unfair as applying a broader definition of ET to Bach’s time and saying that it was ET.

If both the offsets and the iH of the piano are taken into account, general trends could be looked at. After all, that is how ETDs are able to tune pianos. Wouldn’t you want to know how mindless octaves effect an unequal temperament? Or do you just want to keep wondering and guessing? "Ignorance is Bliss"

Bill, reflect upon your own words:

About revers well, you write..."That is how it typically happens and it is firmly believed to be ET."...

So, you are comparing EBVT to what?

About customers, you write:..."They have never heard a perfect ET, so they have no reference point for that. When they hear their music come alive in a way they never had before, it is truly an epiphany for them."...

Then, you could explain GP's enthusiasm.

And:..."The way that music sounds in the EBVT III is the way it should sound and the way it should have been recorded."...

So you could understand where pride leads to.

By reflecting upon your own words, you may also acknowledge ET's evolution and mixed SBI/RBI tuning sequencies, and teach tuning at its best.

You also allow yourself to write:..."The mathematical theories would prove it is wrong too! So, let 'em just wonder about it and keep 'em guessing."...

What kind of game is this, in GP's enthusiastic thread?

Modern ET mathematical theories would tell you that your tunings too can improve, from a Well/quasi-ET hybrid to a more euphonious form. Perhaps this does not sound "nice", but it may be simple enough.

Regards, a.c.

grandpianoman:

When you get a chance: I'm curious about the zenph system. I've read through their site, and I see that they take into consideration 10 factors in the recording and generate a high-definition midi file. I'm puzzled, however:

Does the high def midi file change the pitch of the note to match that of the recording? In other words, if one has a Diskclavier that's tuned differently from the a recording one wants to reproduce on it, and one uses one of their midi files, will it correct the tuning so that it matches that of the original recording? (So, does your EBVT-tuned piano become an ET-tuned piano when playing one of their files?)

If it does "correct" the pitch, does it do so with pitchbends on each note? (Have you examined the midi files in a sequencer that lets you see the midi data stream?)

Going in the other direction, do you know if their system can record the original tuning? In other words, if a piano was tuned to a meantone temp, would their midi file record the pitches of the notes accurately. I imagine so, but their site never mentions pitching or tuning.

IF SO, THIS would be one good way to examine the history of early 20th century (popular music, I suppose) piano tuning, you see: if they can autorecord the pitch variations of each note, it would give us much. Not the upper partials, but the fundamentals. On the other hand, this would be expensive, assuming that their scholarly interests and time might be undermined by other considerations. Yet the pitch data might be the very easiest thing for them to read, and it would be a valuable contribution to musicology...


Thanks for any insight.

(I'm starting a new thread about the more general subject of researching early 20th century tunings, so that the original subject of this thread--the great recordings--isn't diluted.)