Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Introductory understanding of EBVT ?

Now look at one of the EBVT graphs:


The bell-shaped curve represents from left to right an increase of intesity, then a decrease back to CE. (The green bars are inverted to stay positive - which adds to the confusion... But look at the beat speed numbers of F-A G-B and C-E ... All = 6.0 Remember that any beat doubles an octave above or gets divided an octave below, so LOOK at all of the matching beat rates! E-G B-D# and Ab-C and others are really close to equal beating. There are a few clustered at 8ish beats per second, or mutiples as well. That is one of the real beautiful possibilities with temperaments other than equal.

One of the first perceptions is the calmness of triads or arpeggios in the simpler keys. ET just sounds "busy" once the ear gets accustomed to hearing other temperaments...

Ron Koval
chicagoland

Does that bit make sense so far?

I assume you meant "intensity," but I do not understand what it means in this context.

I find thirds which are closer to just dull-sounding. Thirds which are much wider than equal temperament seem wolfish. It is what I have grown used to.

Yup, my mistake - consider the beats a varience of vibrato - slower less intense, faster more intense...

Now when you say wolfish... In ET the major thirds range from 5.2 bps to 10.4 bps from C-E to C-E. I assume that you don't consider anything within that range wolfish. Now look at the EBVT graph. Anything over 10.4 bps? Ah - there it is... one third beating faster, the F#-A# at 12 bps. Hmm, that would about the same as the D-F# in the next octave higher in ET...

But that one isn't wolfish?

And look, there's only two major thirds that are slower than the ET C-E of 5.2 bps - the C-E and the D-F#. (3bps and 4.3bps) Is that slower enough to sound dull? That's beating about the same speed as the Eb-G an octave lower in ET. Does that sound dull?


Take a look at the blue bars (P5ths) There are some pure ones there - NICE

Ron Koval
chicagoland

This seems as good a time and place as any to address this 1.7 beat ratio between major and minor thirds in ET, because it will point a out a problem with all these graphs from Rollingball. INHARMONICITY IS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!

Now I know that iH is different an every piano and blah, blah, blah. But there are still some common features for well scaled pianos. In the temperament octave M3s, P4s, P5s, and M6s will beat slightly slower than theoretical and will less than double in beat speed for each octave. The m3s and m6s will beat slightly faster than theoretical and will more than double in beat speed for each octave. (Reading between the lines indicates that the 3:2 fifth and the 6:4 fifth act very differently…) When iH is included, the theoretical 1.7 beat rate ratio between M3s and m3s in the major triads is closer to 2 with 4:2 octaves.

And when we consider how EBVT III is actually tuned, some of the beat speeds shown on the Rollingball graphs cannot be correct when inharmonic tones are used. But for comparison of one temperament to another, they are very useful.

I have the computed beat speeds for a Yamaha U1tuned to EBVT III and should be able to post them today or tomorrow.

Ron, you ask:..."But that one isn't wolfish?"...

No, it is not, since (referring to Chas ET) it is absolutly proportioned (beat-wise) and euphonious. You may agree, once we can feel and compare, with our ear, with our eye or our touch, we (some) are able to feel the slightest differences. In any case, one of us may be missing the EBVT point, which seems to be the opportunity to go from (subjective? objective?) dull-isch to wolfish. So the pianist is whirled and emotioned, the composer will be orienteted and motivated. EBVT, for what I understand (and respect) seems to feature "sweet and sour", better and worse for good, am I wrong?

I was asking you about ETD's, have you read my post by any chance?

Regards, a.c.

If you want to play that game, you need to look at the beats not as an absolute number of beats per second, but as a percentage of the frequency of the note. Otherwise you are saying that there are no wolfs in the bass, and there is nothing but wolfs in the treble.

Either missed that, or forgot to respond - which thread?

sorry!

Ron Koval

So now, I think it may be time to "go down the rabbit hole" (Alice in Wonderland)

As Jeff points out, the graphs only take us so far. I remember trying to tune the Coleman 16 - I think it was that one...


And then playing the piano - WAIT, the E triad sounded more vibrant than the F# triad...what's going on?!? Re-checked, retuned - still the same. That's when I started to consider the interaction of beats - There's the beat of the M3 and the beat of the m3 in a simple triad. Re-voice to use the 12th, and everything changes - as composers have done for years. It is possible as Jeff writes to have the beats tuned in a 2:1 ratio. There's a reinforced beat at the slower beat level and the overall beat corresponds to the faster m3 beat.

If however, the beats are not tuned to a 2:1, or 3:2 or some even ration, it is possible to have the overall percieved bet be the SUM of the beatrates of the two intervals. Messy indeed!

Ron Koval
chicagoland

Sorry the following is messy. I haven't figured out how to display a real table. If you click the quote button, it may look better.

This is what I calculated for cents deviation from theoretical ET and the beat speed of the intervals in bps using the iH of a Yamaha U1, Bill's EBVT III sequence and a compromise of 4:2 and 6:3 octaves. Notice that there are wide fifths, which would have to result when there are pure fourths and octaves wider than 4:2. There's a reason that A4 is not 440, but I can't remember right now. Maybe the humidity changed...


Name iH Cents min3 Maj3 P4 P5
F3 0.13 -0.79 -10.3 6 1.17 0
F#3 0.15 -2.86 -10.09 8.88 0.92 -0.92
G3 0.17 0.36 -11.07 6 1.17 -1.33
G#3 0.18 -1.97 -11.99 9.99 0 -0.29
A3 0.2 -2.42 -9.57 7.71 1.33 -1.36
A#3 0.22 0.42 -16.49 7.71 0.29 -1.01
B3 0.24 -2.25 -13.37 10.63 0 -0.68
C4 0.26 1.47 -16.9 6 0.12 -0.87
C#4 0.28 -3.37 -16.19 13.49 2.13 0.34
D4 0.3 -1.15 -15.44 10.91 3.06 -0.97
D#4 0.32 -0.33 -19.17 13.89 1.01 0.1
E4 0.36 -3.51 -12.96 15.49 3.25 0.43
F4 0.39 0.45 -21.53 12.23 2.59 0.43
F#4 0.43 -1.27 -20.58 17.97 1.98 -1.57
G4 0.46 2.18 -22.52 12.19 2.54 -2.41
G#4 0.5 0 -24.24 20.45 0.12 -0.3
A4 0.57 -0.43 -20.47 15.06 2.57 -2.41
A#4 0.62 2.55 -34.97 15 0.45 -1.66
B4 0.68 0 -29.03 20.84 -0.02
C5 0.74 4 -36.51 11.6 0.15
C#5 0.8 -0.77 -34.38 27.15
D5 0.88 1.67 -32.79
D#5 0.96 2.65
E5 1.06 -0.26
F5 1.17 3.92

So going down the rabbit hole, the question that Cashley has may best be expressed as “What is trying to be accomplished by such a temperament?” It might be some kind of equal-beating effect or the equal beating may be just a way to get a certain kind of color variation between keys. And when the temperament is expanded with inharmonic tones, it does matter, at least when computing frequencies. But then when tuning with equal beating 12ths and 15ths (mindless octaves) the intervals no longer beat the same and neither does the key color remain the same!

So what is the purpose of EBVT III tuned with mindless octaves? In my mind it is just an easy way to tune something close to ET that some people like.

Aha! The answer is 12:7. That is the whole number ratio of the beat speed of the min3 and Maj3 for theoretical Major triads. (Yes, waaay down the rabbit hole)

Hello Ron, thanks for replying.

..."Either missed that, or forgot to respond - which thread?"

It's here:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1465556.html#Post1465556

Also, what's your idea about:..."In any case, one of us may be missing the EBVT point, which seems to be the opportunity to go from (subjective? objective?) dull-isch to wolfish. So the pianist is whirled and emotioned, the composer will be orienteted and motivated. EBVT, for what I understand (and respect) seems to feature "sweet and sour", better and worse for good, am I wrong?"

Regards, a.c.

Jeff, this is not the purpose of EBVT III with mindless octaves, as you very well know. It might be, in your mind, but there's no one forcing you to repeat that over and over, in every thread that discuss EBVT.

Your point has been noted many times before, thank you. Now, can you please show some respect towards all of us that like to tune EBVT III because of the sound it brings to the piano? If you don't like that sound, fine, but implying that it's an easy way out is an insult.

If you question this, before you rush to conclusions - please go ahead and try "the easy way out". You might be surprised. A math tuning (symmetrical, like ET) is far easier to me, and I suspect the same would hold true for you. That is, if you respect the temperament enough not to just throw anything in that is unequal, and call it good.

Pat:

Following any kind of logical explanation for EBVT III with mindless octaves always leads me to the same conclusion. And listening to any examples of EBVT III is just plain offensive to me. Why would I want to try something that I have already found offensive?

When we consider that the OP's question is: "... could someone explain in simple language what EVBT is all about ?" and nobody seems to be able to do so, I do not apologize for stating what I think it is really all about and why.

EBVT is all about splitting the temperament octave (and by expanding, the rest of the piano) in such a way that respects the historical preference of composers for choosing certain keys over another. See the rollingball site click on the "about Key color" on the left side to see a chart (text) of some of the characteristics associated with certain keys from historical data. ET negates all of this.

How is that?

Ron Koval
chicagoland

"How is that?"

Fine, but doesn't any WT do the same? I hold fast to what makes EBVT unique: it is easy to tune.

[Edit:]

”… and by expanding, the rest of the piano… “

Oh, really? I have yet to see directions on how any UT is expanded on an inharmonic instrument, such as the piano, and still retain the characteristics of the UT. In fact, it is recommended that EBVT be expanded with mindless octaves which, according to it’s Creator, does not retain the exact characteristics of EBVT, but tends toward ET!

Because of the same reason that we can accept slower beats in the bass and faster beats in the treble in ET - our modern ears seem to be more sensitive to differences in that middle ground...

The EBVT is one of the few temperaments acceptable to most piano owners - with clear aural directions. For machine tuners all of the other temperaments are easily available, but for aural techs, perhaps not.

I'd have to agree that there are other choices that provide key color, the pipe organ effect and equal beating match ups with a similar effect as the EBVT.

Ron Koval
chicagoland

Would you say that ET is another of the few temperaments that are acceptable to most piano owners? And would you say that a temperament can only have clear aural directions if it is easy to tune? If so, then you may agree with what, in my mind, EBVT is all about: It is close to ET, it is easy to tune and some people like it.

Jeff,
That is precisely why I like to tune EBVTiii in addition to ET and it's been stated many times by others. Both temperaments can be tuned aurally, are relatively straight forward, and both require tweaks in order to opitimize the effect each has on the piano anyway. As you know, each piano has its own set of challenges anyway, so it is without regard to the temperament at that point.

If you don't like it, don't learn to tune it. I like it and I can appreciate how it positively affects my own playing. Some of my clients think that, too, some do not. To each their own. Heck, my ET has been quasi this whole time, and so has my EBVTiii - it's all good.

I am now going to get an ETD so as to experiment with other UTs Ron mentions and to help me check my own accuracy with ET and EBVTiii. I had started down that ETD path before, but wanted to train my ear in order to learn how to make those tweaks. All this talk about a few cents or a few fractions of a cent here or there has me curious.

Glen

Glen:

I am glad you like both ET and EBVT. And I appreciate your acceptance of my own preferences. Thank you for not saying “Try it, you’ll like it.” That is what makes me rightfully indignant.

Best of luck on the ETD trail. I am still putting it off. Had a run-in with a Young Chang that reminded me of a few things I might not have noticed if I had been using an ETD. It had to do with the difference between 3:2 and 6:4 fifths.

Hi Jeff,
I am hoping that by beginning to implement the use of an ETD (probably tunelab) that it does not mess me up, but that I can use it to help refine what skill-set I've acquired thusfar.

...just my .02 cent, if I can hear it

Glen