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

Dear Isaac,

I'm glad you are again taking part to this Forum and contributing with your feedbacks. Good news from your customers... I really think your success has to do with your own constant commitment, your passion and sincere desire for improvements. For some reasons, I feel more comfortable to reply to you privately. Be sure, I too look forward to meeting you again.

Un caro saluto,

Alfredo

- . - . - . -

Hi Tunewerk,

..."The only reason I didn't respond further, is I noticed you defending your CHAS idea in light of my comments. I don't intend to threaten your beliefs or understanding. If anything, I have come to believe we may view tuning similarly based on our independent experience."...

Thank you for your reply. I was ready to post mine... now I'd better read your latest adding and see if my reasoning can still make sense. I need to precise that my comment was not addressed to you, so I apologize for having been ambiguous.

I also need to say that Chas is basically a temperament model and it is meant to describe a new approach to the ordering of a sound scale; Chas scale is modeled on pure ratios (1:1, 3:1 and 4:1) and enables the representation of an inter-modular ruled tone-geometry as one of infinite (s) solutions. I hope you understand that nothing there needs to be defended.

Hopefully I'll be able to post tomorrow.

Regards, a.c.
.

..."I have come to believe we may view tuning similarly based on our independent experience."...

Hi Tunewerk,

I would not be surprised if we were to view tuning similarly and I look forward to being able to expand on piano tuning, both in theory and practice. In fact, even now I would feel ready to ask you:

- Do you think we could succeed in sharing tunings 100%, with a theoretical model that could only rule 12 semitones?

- How do you tune chromatic 4ths, 5ths, octaves, 12ths and 15ths? Do you follow any rule?

The latest issue: "Tempering for chorus and non-fretted string ensembles". On the theoretical side, I would still like to understand, either through numbers or out of logics or common sense, which is the "best possible division" you mentioned, when considering complex chords.

I have read your adding. On that, I'll post separately.

You wrote: ..."Temperament is a problem for fixed string instruments. Chorus and non-fretted string ensembles can require musical situations that involve temperament, but that is by choice."…

Please, help me "translate". Perhaps you mean: There exist musical situations where chorus and non-fretted ensembles have to temper; the difference is that they can choose how to temper, depending on desired effects?

If that is correct, we would agree on one (simplified) point: There exist musical situations where chorus and non-fretted ensembles have to temper. And I'd rather consider "choice" and "desired effects" as two other different issues, in the "harmony - in tune" chapter.

..."Proving this is exhaustive. All rational frequency combinations result in some form of consonance. No matter what pattern, this is true. The degree of consonance is the only question."...

Ok, let's say that is true. Now let's consider the "degree of consonance". I get the impression that you move from these premises:

(1) consonance = rational. No problem, this is within tradition.

(2) harmony = rational. Problem. If that is true, then:

(3) consonance = harmony

We know that, in case of complex chords, favoring one single rational (pure) frequency combination would go to the detriment of all other combinations, precisely in those terms of consonance = harmony you refer to in your premise. As a consequence, consonance cannot equal harmony. This evidence takes me directly to the question: what drives chorus and ensembles towards the highest degree of harmony, as you say, towards the "best possible division"? Can it be one single "rational" combination? And can we talk about a "choice" or will it be more a "must"?

..."Fixed-tone instruments introduce irrational relationships when attempting to equally space tones on a prime curve. These irrational relationships require temperament to find a solution of best fit."

Indeed, it is that concept, perhaps how we order factors, that I'm trying to double check. Adopting your words, this is what I can say (after some numbers):

Prime curves require temperament when dealing with complex chords. These prime curves introduce irrational relationships when attempting to space proportional tones and find a solution of best fit.

One consequential question: Would you (All) say that "rational = consonance" equals "in tune"?

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi,

Thank you, Tunewerk, for adding.

..."...what is essential to what I am saying is the concept of movable tones. Pure progressive chord structures require note frequencies that shift slightly to account for their different internal interconnected ratios, as well as the leading tones that connect them."...

Please, help. I do not understand whether you refer "Pure" to the word "progressive" or to "chord structures". In case of complex chord structures, even if we are enabled to shift frequencies, there is no way to "interconnect internal ratios" and get them all "pure". This is to say that "Pure ...chord structures" would not make sense to me. As you wrote a few days ago,

..."If a choir did sing these strings of 5ths 4ths or 3rds, they'd have to temper their intervals to achieve a 5/1. However, the difference between that and the piano, is all harmonies would be built on rational interference between waves.. meaning at least one wave pair in ratio, from each dyad, would constructively interfere."...

And we would still need to prove that in order to build harmonies we need "rational interference".

Movable tones. Yes, singers, chorus and non-fretted tones are movable indeed but that, objectively, can only translate into movable temperament, and I doubt how convenient that can sound. I remember your reply to one of my points:

..."1) There is no single adjusted chord geometry. Or a single fixed pitch. One starts on pitch, but may not end on the same pitch. The natural form of music (before unnatural fixed scales) was a flexing, moving geometry through time. Chords grew out of one another, perhaps never repeating exact note twice. When the concept of fixed notes did not exist, there was only ratio."...

As you say, singers do not have a single fixed pitch, they might start on one pitch but may not end on the same pitch (it seems that the tendency is to go flat), but if that occurs it is considered a problem. Bows do have fixed pitch, 4 free strings at fixed pitch. That's why they would not go for movable temperaments.

..."Melodic lines tend to go sharp or flat depending on their direction. Cellos and violins rise in their intonation when playing upwards along a melodic line. They fall in their intonation when descending."...

I do not know if what you say is scientific, it is not what I hear. In any case that does not prove they are released from having to temper. Do you agree? In my view this last one is a different issue, namely "intonation".

..."Without the harmonic constraint of a fixed scale, melody tends to be greatly expanded and chords can occur in new locations, as dictated by the progression of the melodic line."...

Well, what I can say is that chorus, yes, if (for any reason) they were to change the original pitch, rising or falling, they would have to find new chord locations. But this is not to say "they do not need to temper". I hope you acknowledge that this is not a question of personal opinion nor believes, but numbers: non-fretted instruments have their fixed pitch too, that is what determines the constraints; assigning chords a "new location" would cause an obvious problem, in fact free strings would not sound in tune.

I hope we can share this (numerical and musical) notion: one single integer ratio, one single wave pair in ratio, although producing as you say "high density" consonance, cannot make for harmony. Before any fixed scale, "prime curves" deriving from one single fixed pitch are enough to determine melodies-within-harmony constraint, making temperament a must. Perhaps we should go to the source to find the first cause of constraint and the reason why temperament is required always, whether we sing or play; perhaps we would see that it is not "fixing" but "ordering" tone steps in a scale, two different issues. In fact fixing can simply be fixing, while ordering can result in a poor, out of tune tuning.

Last but not least, I do not see any reason why our musical ear should fear irrational relationships. Do you?

Regards, a.c.
.

Alfredo, I respectfully bow out of further discussion.. I just don't have time to give the proper attention to the litany of questions you have detailed, as well as the parsing of semantics.

I will perhaps write on this subject further in my online journal when I have the time. I have just pointed to some mathematical facts here.

If you prefer beating relationships and want to call that harmony, great, more power to you.

I look forward to other substantive additions on these topics.

Thank you, Tunewerk, for those mathematical facts you have been able to point out. Let me know where I can find a link to your online journal, there too I would surely appreciate your further elaborations.

Regards, a.c.
.

Hi,

One thought on what has recently been said about "intonation", "having to temper" and "movable tones".

We tuners happen to deal with pianos, what we call a fixed-tone instrument, and the majority of pianists are not enabled to improve their piano's intonation, in fact tones are "fixed" there where we leave them. Yet, when I tune pianos I've learned how important it is thinking in terms of "movable tones", perhaps I should say ever "adjusting tones", in that tones tend to adjust in time, tones "move" regularly even during our tuning, when we modify the strings tension and the load onto the entire structure.

On the other hand, singers and bows, although allowed to "movable tones", are always enabled to master their intonation and their tones, exactly where they hear them "in tune". One "alternative" picture might then be this:

Pianos are fixed tone instruments, we have to deal with their "movable" tones.

Singers and non-fretted instrument musicians are allowed to master their intonation and enabled to play in tune... "fixed" tones.

The video linked below reminded me of when I studied violin, when I was practicing intonation, looking for the "best possible division", wanting to hear my scales "in tune" always. One day I opened the case and my small chinese toy raised… the finger board had come unstuck…

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

Perhaps you want to share your thoughts.

Regards, a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. - Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo - 2009, Italy:
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

Article by Professor Nicola Chiriano - published by P.RI.ST.EM (Progetto Ricerche Storiche E Metodologiche) - University "Bocconi" - Milano, 2010 - (Italian):
http://matematica.unibocconi.it/articoli/relazioni-armoniche-un-pianoforte

Chas Tunings:
http://www.chas.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=44&lang=en

Hi,

There is one cliché that may cause one more point of confusion; this, in my view, unfortunately allows for mystification and it may open to ignorance as a consequence. Briefly, the cliché I'm talking about was again reported last year by an Interlocutor of mine:

Int.: ..."Also, not all instruments regard Equal Temperament as their standard, so any intended improvement on Equal will be mostly irrelevant to players of those other instruments, and a good portion of the rest aren't even aware that there is anything to improve on."...

Me: Which other instrument are you referring to? In my view, all instrument players might be happy to adopt the most correct reference and the most performing ET frequency scale.

Int.: "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."...

- . - . - . -

Focusing on "in tune" and "Beat-free intervals"... had I thought that a piano "is an out of tune instrument to be tolerated...", 30 years ago I'd have gone for gardening.

I'm sure All of you understand that, once more, I'm addressing to temperament and intonation, a simple word that has a precise meaning and yet it seems to be loosing sense day after day, also amongst... Piano Tuners!!

Now, those simple numbers I recently showed can well prove that chords "must" be tempered, thus including chorus and non-fretted instruments.

Today I'm pleased to be able to share a recording of Chas tuning with an orchestra. Two more concerts had just been played on that piano and I did not correct anything, as that was a competition and this final was performed all in one go. I'm offering the last fourth of the whole recording not casually, but hoping we can discuss more about whole fusion, stability, sound coherence, singing tones and above all...intonation.

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

Regards, a.c.

Thank you so much for the recording ALfredo.

That piano sound nicely in tune with itself, and the orchestra is like "in its bed" in the tuning.

[video:youtube]SQ9BYCbJOfs[/video]

Did you talk with the conductor about the orchestral justness ?

Nicely done ! congratulations !

I certainly wish to hear more of that...


I thought of writing that for free, but yes I will accept your check, Alfredo...

You Editor! Come'n pass me your bank account...

I forget this was a public forum !

See Alfredo, when you stay aware, you can do a reasonably good job ! Do you have perfect pitch ?

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.