You mean pit-chas?

You got me but no I am not Pitch - assed (nor pitch locked for what is worth)
I am a pitch chas floater , unique rare model

Hi All,

A few days ago I posted again about an issue that I've always considered fundamental, namely "intonation". I'm wondering whether I've managed to explain how important it is for me the possibility to share the meaning of that word, how I consider good (if not perfect) intonation as being the foundation of all music, together with a sense of rhythm that we are able to share, in my view, to the same extent.

I'm realizing now that, perhaps, I may have made a (life-long) mistake in taking my own idea for granted and, perhaps, I should be better aware and learn that I'm simply wrong, that good intonation is not fundamental in music and that intonation is a notion that can be shared only partially.

It all started when I read in PW about the (apparently common) idea that whether one likes a tuning or not, it is a question of personal preference. Then I asked myself: how is it that ear equipped people can tell if one note sounds out of tune? How is it that a whole bunch of people might agree on saying that a note is simply out of tune?

On top of that I received a comment (below) that gave me a measure of how far I might be from the actual widespread outlook:

..."What I am referring to is that the players of instruments such as brass and woodwinds automatically adjust their playing with the intention of achieving beat-free intervals against other players,...//.snip.//... Since "in tune" ideally means beat-free intervals, then calling beating intervals (albeit with a different compromise of beats and key color than 12th root of two ET) "in tune" or not will always be subjective.//.snip.//... Free intonating instruments (horns, reeds, strings) do not need to use an equal temperament and will always gravitate to Just Intonation or "Natural" tuning as the more consonant sound; to them the piano is an out of tune instrument to be tolerated rather than imitated."...

On the one hand, I think I can hear which tuning free-intonating instruments gravitate to, how the polyphonic attraction can change, on the other hand I could never think that "...the piano is an out of tune instrument to be tolerated rather than imitated."...

I would be very grateful if you helped me "adjust" my believes, and that is why I linked a piano concert, so that you could know about my premises and help me correct my view.

Sergej Rachmaninov, hope you enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ9BYCbJOfs

Have a nice Sunday,

Regards, a.c.

Hi dear ALfredo,

You are a little too obsessive about that, what I understand.

I would be temped to believe that the musician adjust his intonation depending of the place where he plays, and that his intention is primarily to "feel" that what he plays/sing sound "just" in the context he is using.

The piano is not much considered as an instrument which is "just" naturally, but it contains a certain dose of justness that can be used, as you do nicely with Chas. My brother's wife which is a harp player in a good orchestra, told me when she heard the Chas that it was "the first time she heard a piano sounding just"

I am trying to do some experiments and compare the tone of pianos in regard of the orchestra in different situations, with the kind of "fixed intonation" I have on my own piano.

Usually the Chas tuning make the melodic section very clear and it can be heard better in an ensemble or in a piece even with heavy harmony in the low mediums. The treble also sings nicely, as it can be heard in the Stravinsky piece you provided on Youtube, where the high treble does not ask for more raise in my opinion.

Then , the limit, to me is that with a strong harmony, things can be a tad static, as when we compare the broken octave to the octave played with the 2 notes at the same moment.

I feel that some motion in intonation can be used, probably more on the piano than on pure tones instruments . That is how I felt the tuning approach beforethen, compacting some regions so they add force to the zone one and 2 octaves above, enlarging some others so to have more crispness in arpegiated parts, ALl that supposedly while keeping progressive beating of the FBI, just changing the acceleration.

ALl that "acoustic treatment" could mostly be done with many intervals, but due to the attention the tuners usually have to octaves, it is done with octaves and doubles that are enlarged, highly enlarged, or tuned plain and even smaller than "pure" sometime.
In most concert tunings one can hear a pinch of Chas ratio, (often not enough to my desire) and other consonance nodes used while the FBI progress at different rates. compact = low level of consonance to me .

The standard concert tuning instructions some 20 years ago where to tune a nicely spanned octave with good 5th, 4ths, 3ds 6th and the like, then to stretch all following notes to the max so to adsorb the iH. Then depending of the largeness of the first octave the intonation can focus on a zone in the 5_6 octave then raise more and more just to add noise as are doing the duplex scales.
The larger the initial octave, the less contrasted the progression

The resonant nodes give the piano a particular timbral behavior.
I noticed yet that the larger the tuning is in the mediums, the straighter his progression, but at the same time it takes some distance from its own voice at the lowest level of harmony (3d and 5th) Your findings and model find an elegant solution to this, and at the same time allow to raise the consonance of the whole instrument, at the same time a certain coloration of the chords install itself.

I for one also like the piano while it is rubbing and harsh a little with itself , in some cases if the consonance is too fast it makes the tone very kind, chords are soon policed in the next consonance node available, so at the same time that perfection is admirable, and at the same time is it what other instruments are used to as an intonation ?
Are not the violinists playing sharper and sharper in the treble, do the singers have also a tendency to raise their high pitched notes in the idea they will be heard farther or stronger ?

I am probably not a good candidate for that analysis as I use purely my musical sense and my hearing to decide if an interval speed pleases me or not, in a given context .

I hope you will have other answers, may be mine is not what you where asking for

KInd regards

Isaac

Thank you, Isaac.

Although my issue (above) is not referring to one precise tuning model nor to Pro technicalities, you have definitely given a pertinent answer: "...I use purely my musical sense and my hearing...".

- . - . - . -

Not focusing on one temperament, I'm offering one recording (above) so that we may have two options, the general/personal idea and one practical ground. I really hope others can tell what "intonation" means for them, to what extent we can expect to be able to share our musical sense, and-or simply tell if the idea that "the piano is an out of tune instrument to be tolerated rather than imitated" should be taken for granted.

Thank you in advance, a.c.

Edit: My last post was cut off, now it is complete. Sorry for that.

Weh ALfredo, the "CHAS" tuning is highly addictive !

I tested a software ETD , DIrk's tuner (who does a very good job, I tend to believe the tuning model is really well setup, better even that the basic model of Verituner or RCT if memory serves, the progression of all intervals is nicely set.

Well I did that tuning while at the same time use a standard temperament 4th 5th to get top FBI's so I only followed the proposed octave size (which is around 0,3 bps open on the temperament).

Finally I had a piano sounding very just, no problem there, with the treble sounding clear , octaves double triples are nice.
compact, when playing I am using the sustain pedal to add some resonance way more than with the CHAS form.

Indeed there is a consonance that is heard at the octave level, even the 12ths are correct, but no way to have that so fast reaction from the instrument at each note...

I wonder if it is not due mostly on the tuning not coming from above like with your method, it indeed deflates a bit when unisons where tuned ...
Well so to say, anyway, no strong impression of intonation ... in fact it is similar as the so many pianos tuned with much evolved compromising and no focus as obtained in pianos tuned by ear only.

Well I am addicted to the elegance of the CHAs ! (also it allows for a less fast speed raising of the 17th so the treble is quieter)

I am amazed that the difference is so large ! Ill try to record something but this is not a very good piano..

Best regards

Hi Isaac, thank you for your feedback. I shall reply in the Pre-Tuning thread.

Oh, hope you don't get too... expensive?

A443, Aussy, BDB, Bill, Bob, Bojan, Chris, Dan, Daryl, Dave, David, Del, Diane, Ed, Emmery, Erich, Gene, GranpM, Ian, Jake, Jeff, Jerry, Jim, John, Jurgen, Kees, Keith, Kent, Loren, Mark, Phil, Rafael, Robert, Ron, Roy, Scott, Tunewerk, and All... yesterday I found this:

pdf. : Sundberg, J. - "In tune or not? A study of fundamental frequency in music practise"

Of course... it's all relative. I'll appreciate your comments.

Does "intonation" make sense?

Regards, a.c.

Got a link?

Ok , I'm coming into this thread late and can't figure out what a "CHAS" tuning is? And, How many different Historical Tunings are there?

Hello !
here is a Chas tuning checked by the pianist :
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6GjQDkF_AMQS3c0T0VzaUszQUk

I talk under the control of my Master A.C. who developed and invented the C.H.A.S
I dont like those acronyms, I would prefer to say "harmonic temperament", but then, what is the definition of a temperament ? does it apply to CHAS, I guess yes as it is a method to define the intervals between the notes and chords , as the "COrdier tuning" relatively well known and used in France, ore the "STopper duodecime tuning" . All based on mathematical assertions that can be verified in the field, and modify the consonance of the partials within the instrument.
I guess this category of temperament could be names "even beating temp"

For the historical ones I guess you could report them to 3 classes, all dividing the octave with different generation models and methods.

The 4 th and 5th temperament can also be considered as a generation method, and the ladder of thirds too, but those 2 methods relate also to historical families (ladder of thirds could be related to meantone for instance)

Those days with all the alchemists of the HT, who are creating a new model every then, I believe that the real number of stated temperaments cannot be known, and in the end dont make an interesting importance in my opinion.

Some music have been clearly written at an era and place where a type of temperament was used, It is probably only for older family of classical music in occidental culture.
Then , as tuners use may differ from place to place, the different tuning schemes and the different forks certainly gives tunings where the Fast beating intervals where not as smooth and even than today , using that to pretend to a return to authenticity lay me relatively meditative, particularly when I hear the singing quality of the so tuned pianos, who is often a good level under what can be done.

So I tend to consider that as a way to hide substandard work in face of a non educated audience, or a desperate quest to some kind of harmony .
It is a little sad as there is certainly something that can be searched seriously that will lend to simple comprehension of what happened in those eras, assuming instruments with adequate tone are used.

The modern piano with its relatively pure sound is not the good candidate for those experimentations IMO.

Hi Dave, you mention a good point: what is Chas tuning?

I'll report a sort of definition made by an interlocutor of mine not long ago, perhaps you can tell me if you would like to know more:

..."...I am beginning to see where you are coming from. This is a model for saying what more advanced tuners do, and to maybe help many in the tuning community look at the piano scale frequencies and temperament in a new way? Many tuners view temperament in all manner of old ways, not the least of which is the antiquated, strict doubling of the octave."...

Let me ask you, Dave, are you concerned with intonation, either for yourself or your customers?

Hi All,

are you concerned with intonation, either for yourself or your customers?

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi,

Perhaps by investigating some issues related to temperaments we have finally got to the nerve centre of tuning, namely intonation.

I must acknowledge that it is not easy to talk about intonation... some of us are definitely able to say when something is out of tune (see Mark R. and many others) while some others may not. And I understand that many techs may have approached our job with different motivations, perhaps being more concerned about the market place, the environment or general mechanical factors and/or job specifics.

Intonation, tuning stability, timbre and touch/keyboard dynamics are all deeply related to the piano sound and the pianist' performance. I know that the idea of "clean unisons being all we need" achieves widespread success, personally I would only end that sentence saying "...all we need to start with". At least that is how I started, trying to get decent stability, good intonation and unisons out of old broken pianos stockpiled in a basement.

I find no better way to close this chapter with a nice video I found, while looking for barbershop singing. Unfortunately I do not understand a word of what they say, though I hope you like it. Thank you All for your contributions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmDGntpZC3I

Regards, a.c.
.

Hello,

Two more interesting works, I hope you too find them interesting:

By Eitan Ornoy:

An empirical study of intonation in performances of J.S. Bach's ...
www.tau.ac.il/arts/music/hebrew/Publications/download/Ornoy.pdf

By J. Murray Barbour:

Tuning and Temperament - A Historical Survey (1951)
http://www.unz.org/Pub/BarbourJMurray-1951?View=ReadIt

To All,

20' Happy New Year '13

a.c.

Hi All,

Hello rxd, let me move your recent contribute in here:



Perhaps now you are ready to talk about tuning, following a post of mine, although some time has passed. I have been missing your reply:

Posted here, #1852385 - February 27, 2012 09:57 AM Re: HISTORICAL ET AND MODERN ETs [Re: alfredo capurso]




Regards, a.c.
.

Hi rxd,

I have moved our replies from the "Best UT for Voice Teacher" thread in here for two reasons, because I do not like the idea of going off topic there, and because I like thinking that we (All) can share our pro experience, and perhaps help young colleagues with more indications.



This was my reply:

..."I don't think we disagree on anything of any consequence."...

I am glad, rxd, all in all... good news.

..."Perhaps the ET that can be told is not the eternal ET to paraphrase Lau Tsu."...

Nice citation; on the other hand I hope one day you and I together will be able to address ET without having to say "Perhaps...".

..."Philosophically, is the mathematical model still ET when transfered to any instrument?"...

Your question doesn't sound philosophical to me, but kind of "technical", and I would say that there is going to be a substantial difference, depending on the model. Which ET "mathematical model" are you referring to in these days?

..."Who can possibly be that pedantic?"...

Well, in my own perspective things are a bit different: in my opinion, if a tuner were to refer to a wrong model and (say) expect to be able to transfer that (wrong) model on an instrument, the tuner in question would not be "pedantic" but simply wrong.

I think that, in general, mathematical models are taken in consideration only when they can be transferred in actual practice successfully, without even thinking about "pedantic", I would say beyond any possible attribute, here meaning either the model works or it does not.

..."I was taught a two octave temperament. Over the years, the piano has become one huge extended temperament for me."...

Good news, really. I too think that the usual (traditional and theoretical) concept of "temperament" is to be extended to the whole piano, that is what I do in practice and what I am sharing in Modern ET theory.

Today, every time I think of it, I find all that (teaching and) fighting around "12-tempered-semitones" so deceptive, as if 12 semitones could ever define or be representative of the whole tuning. I cannot really explain this illusory phenomenon either... they too are piano tuners, some of them even talk about "whole harmony", they might well understand (?).

Now I am very curious about the two octave temperament you were taught (I mean the sequence, including 4ths, 5ths and octaves) and look forward to knowing how you expand the first two octaves (reference points).

..."As part of a team of 5 that tunes all the major concert and studio pianos here, (yes, there is so much work, it takes 5 and sometimes more, plus a scheduling office of two people), we work interchangeably. There must be over 1000 salaried top flight musicians among our 5 major symphonies and smaller orchestras and theatres, plus as many or more freelance musicians with never a problem they welcome a stable and predictable reference point. If anybody wants anything different, we can accommodate them. Other than the occasional request for 442 which is usually covered by putting in another piano that is stable at that pitch, we are rarely asked for any other temperament. The last time was eight years ago for a new work that hasn't been performed here since."...

Thanks for letting me know about your team and your practice.

- . - . - . -

Regards, a.c.
.