As a customer, I wonder if there is a standard that tuners use in the industry. Do you try to get a triple octave in tune, or do you shoot for 2 octaves to be in tune and the third a bit off, or do you just go for perfect single octaves, and let the 2nd and 3rd octave be where they may? I'm curious because I would think these choices would alter the general sound of the tuning quite a bit, and is there any standard? Thanks.

"In tune" is such a vague term. I try to have as many intervals as possible sound as close to what they should sound like as possible.

None, they are all out of tune.

Yes, I understand, but there's out of tune, and then there's out of tune.

Maybe I'll say it differently. On my piano if I play C4 and C5 together, they sound "in tune" (same for B4/B5, A4/A5, etc etc). If I play C4 and C6 together, they also sound "in tune", but if I play C4 and C7 together, they sound "out of tune". However, if I play C5 and C7 together, they sound "in tune". Is this a standard way of tuning? Do all tuners try to get single and two octaves to sound in tune but not three octaves or is it just my piano that sounds this way?

I cannot hear what you are hearing, so I cannot say.

There isn't a standard. Just an infinite number of different ways of making the compromise.

If you don't like the way the tenor of your piano sounds with the top treble, then it can be tuned differently. Talk to your tuner about it.

There is no standard, just a vast array of aesthetic compromises that different tuners make. Some have an educated reason, others just do what they've been taught or the only thing they know.

It heavily depends on the scaling of your piano. Concert tuning usually errs towards triple octaves and even beyond, but the inharmonicity is lower on these pianos to allow this.

It sounds like you have a very standard [edit: common] tuning on your piano. It is sometimes technically possible to get all single, double and triple octaves 'in-tune', but this requires a good scale. If the triple octaves are noticeably flat to the untrained ear on your piano, I'd guess your scale will require compromises that will knock the single out as you align the triple.

You are talking about octaves being in tune and you are listening to single, double and triple octaves.
A single octave will not have the same character as a double octave and a triple octave will be different from the double and single.
If the piano has recently been tuned you can compare single, double and triple octaves chromatically across the keyboard and each one should have similar character, however - depending on the piano, each octave type will vary somewhat from bass to treble.
Also, check individual notes to be certain you are not being fooled by an out of tune unison - and then there are false beats and other noise that makes it interesting.

@4ever.. if you play 2 notes together, at 2 , 3 or 4 ocatves distance tyour pitch perception will differ than if you play one then the next.

High treble is sometime tuned to advantage arpeggios or broken octaves, (then the pitch can be as high as 1/4 tone , but can also be tuned to be in resonance with the octave below.
depending of the context the higher note will tone a hair low (in my way) if compared straight with a medium note, but this is only a fast impression, one cannot be sure I believe it is just the ear that is asking for a higher pitch, not the brain.

when a tuning is well done, even low bass and high treble sound at the good pitch. (anyway to me !)
But that is a question on how the central octaves are enlarged, the more they are, the less the high treble will sound low.

They are always a little enlarged due to the piano, then the tuner is obliged to enlarge also higher, but there are nuances and it depends of the piano itself

I'll second BDB's responses. Don't obsess. It's only music.

Piano tuning tradition, at least within the Piano Technicians Guild, recommends different size octaves for different areas of the piano.

Generally speaking, the octaves in the middle of the piano will be narrower than the octaves in the high treble and low bass.

On some pianos there is a pretty big difference between triple octaves and double octaves in the high treble. Compromising between the two seems to make the most sense to me.

The reality is that my tuning relies more heavily on 3rds and 6ths in the middle registers, and 10ths and 17ths in the outer registers. The octaves are more of a check to make sure I'm not over-stretching. To me, the vibrato that these intervals produce has a big influence on the character of the tuning: too slow and the piano sounds dull, too fast and it sounds "edgy".

If your piano is a grand, 6+ feet, and you are hearing out-of-tune single/double/triple octaves, I would suggest that maybe the tuner hasn't progressed in their skill that far yet. Especially if you hear a variation in the amount of out-of-tuneness as you move chromatically through the single/double/triple octaves.
I started really trying to make the treble "sing" by tuning pure 12ths. Using a test for a pure 3:1 12th, I was able to get consistent octaves all the way up, (98% RPT with the graph matching the change in string diameter) and that sounded great to me, until I began wanting better double octaves. Now I am tempering the 12ths in favour of the double octave. The octave is slightly wide 4:2, narrow 6:3 (mid section to high treble, as per RPT) and a slightly narrow 3:1 12th and a slightly wide 8:1 double octave. All these are occasionally verified with checks, but I prefer to tune the octaves "beatless" which many will say is impossibly. But when I tune a good octave that is consistently between the 4:2 and 6:3 at the same spot, it has a quality that I can only describe as "beatless". I theorize that the beat at the 4:2 cancels the beat at the 6:3 and the beat at the 2:1 cancels the beat at the 8:4. If this is truly what is happening, then the octave is indeed beatless. Much like we can tune out a false beat by tuning the unison to cancel the false beat. In conclusion, look for consistent single/double/triple octave quality. If you got that, you will be able to request a favouring of one or the other from your technician. Realize that you can't have them all "pure". Especially on a smaller piano.
GREAT question! I love this stuff.

Sorry about that, I was out of line.

If you tune C7 to be in tune with C4 then C6-C7 will surely be out of tune. In piano tuning there are compromises, you can't have all intervals perfectly tuned.

And there is no standard. It is up to the tuner to decide how much he stresses the tuning. Though, in the Tuning examination of the PTG, the upper octave must be tuned as a 2:1 type, which sounds good harmonically (in chords) but flat when played melodically (in arpeggios).

Thank you for responses from everyone. To answer Mark Cerisano directly, the single, double, and triple octave are not inconsistent on my piano. They sound very consistent chromatically up and down the piano. Every single and double octaves sounds really good, and triple octave just so slightly off, and this is the case no matter what starting note you pick. I have a new 6'1" Yamaha. For some reason the piano sounds a bit different from when it was at the store. Once I have it at home, it still sounds like when it was at the store, but once my own tech tunes it, it changes. It's not bad at all, just different. I guess that's why I asked the question, and it seems every tech has a different way of tuning.

A new piano is not going to be as stable as an older piano, and there just may be things that both you and your piano are getting used to.

All of 'em.

Don't forget that the voicing of the piano has a tremendous influence on our perception of what constitutes "in tune."

If your Yamaha grand has brightened up since purchase there will be more higher partials present in the tone - which makes the necessary compromises even more challenging. Room acoustics also play a big role in how we hear tuning and voicing. Many times there is lots of acoustic distortion present in a client home due to the placement of the piano.

Also, lots of great comments above, and Tunewerk is especially spot on - scaling is the big deal here...The best scale designs make the piano much easier to tune throughout the compass.

I should perhaps clarify that my tuner S. Skylark has a very strong reputation in the SF Bay Area, and he is a known concert tuner, also tunes for many performing artists and venues. He is also a Boesendorfer factory trained tuner, etc.

My question is brought on by the fact that all the pianos at the stores sound one way, sort of a generic kind of piano sound regardless of brand. A new 6-foot Yamaha at the store sounds good but also in a generic kind of way. When my tech finishes with mine, it sounds different, a bit darker, edgier, perhaps more like Schumann and Schubert, and less Mozart and Beethoven kind of a way.

I know one of the response advises I should not obssess. I am sure I could get used to it. But I am more curious if I am just imagining things, or if any tuning could actually make this kind of difference.

I should also say that I have been working with the same tech for 3 years, and recently upgrade a 5' piano to a 6' piano. I have noticed that for both pianos, they no longer sound like the samples at the store after he worked on them. I enjoy my relationship with Mr. Skylark and cannot imagine using someone else. He is a consummate professional. However, I just wonder short of attending piano tech school myself, how do pianists communicate with their techs? You may look at us like a bunch of idiots, but I have to say it's not easy to communicate the sound that is in my head versus the sound that I am hearing.

In any case, I always believe that time spent with a techs in person or on the forum is always an education.

Does your tech tune the pianos in the store?

If not, you're hearing the differences in particular tunings. Quite often the tunings in stores are 'functional' and adequate for testing/selling purposes. A lot of shops don't spend money on highly experienced technicians getting the best possible tuning on every piano in the store. A domestic tuning is a different game however, and an experienced tech can hear the instrument in it's home environment, and try to get the best out of the instrument.

It sounds like you're in safe hands with your tech, so I'd relax and enjoy playing.

Greetings,
Different techs tune differently, but it is a rare customer that can tell the difference between two top-flight tuners. Assuming they are both tuning the same temperament with the same amount of stretch, it all comes down to clarity of the unison, and the evenness of this clarity. I was once told by a Steinway artist, after many years of tuning for her, that she thought my tunings sounded better the day after I tuned them. This has to be due to a micro drift of the unisons, because when I checked it once, everything was still within the limits that a SAT could discern. Unisons are about the only interval that an ETD cannot measure well enough to satisfy the ear. There is an increase in sustain with unisons that are slightly out of phase,(see Weinrich effect), but for practical tuning, I leave them as close to dead nut on as possible, since they take longer to crash when they start out in the middle of the road.

"In tune" octaves in a recording studio are not the same as in tune octaves on a concert stage, home, or practice room. If you want information about your octave width, it would be helpful to use some recognized measurement, i.e. 3rd/10th, or m3rd/6th tests to tell us what you are hearing.

All in all, if you want to better communicate with your tech, the education should begin on your part, as the more you know about the instrument, the spectra it produces, and the techniques we employ, the better able you will be able to identify what you want. This is a far more plausible route to understanding than expecting the tech to learn how to play with your hands...
Regards,

My tech does not work for stores. I have no idea who tuned the store's pianos.

I should learn more about my instrument; would you say Reblitz's book is a good place to start, or is there something more elementary I should try? Remember, I've no interest in actually becoming my tech.

i guess you heard machine yuned pianos ETD, may be done with a Yamaha Pt something or using a standard stretch without taking in acvount yhe piano itself. I have let much of those tunings myself, the tuning is stronger than the piano and room accoustics.
A good tuner tunes what he hear. so it make the instrument more central in the tuning.
it is also possible to use a very even progression of fast beating intervals without attention to the octaves and doubles etc, and when played the piano sound "in tune"

to have a warmer tone on a Yamaha C 3 the octaves are tuned more tight the notes that are then resonating strong by sympathy are not far from the note played , octave, twelve , double octave. the triple can sound a little out of focus then that is why higher octaves are more enlarged in that case probably.

Again the trade between playing in close harmony or larger one is not always well balanced. Congratulations to notice that , only some tuners can hear that and often only with tests , not when music is played.

I think this describes what I am hearing. My tech tells me I have very good hearing. I assume he is being kind. He said I am one of very few customers who complains about a 3-cent drift. Even though the humidity in SF in almost constantly at 45% year round, I still cannot tolerate any less than 3 tunings per year. For some reason, I do also think my piano sounds best about one week after a tuning.

This is a very helpful discussion. Thanks!

Using your example, it IS possible on better pianos to get the triple octave C to work "just as well" as the single and double octave combinations... There is a little wiggle room in each octave combination where it still sounds "in tune" without being clinical. It sounds like when setting up the tuning on your piano, the triple octave width was set a little outside of the range - usually because of setting the singles and doubles a little "too" narrow.

It really takes tiny adjustments - Virgil Smith did it all aurally, but I find it much easier to do this with the Verituner before starting the job of tuning the whole piano - similar to your example, find the "best" location of all of the A's to set up a framework for the stretch of the piano, with the goal of any combination of A's sounding "in tune". It is a fundamentally different way of approaching the tuning stretch...
(and of course, the better the scale, the more successful the result!)

Ron Koval

Good for your piano, but honestly a 3 cts drift is a large one almost 1 Hz) it can be heard a little, the tone quality change (less tension) at large, but if it is only on a limited zone of the piano as it is usually the case when the drift is due to drying of the soundboard - you have 4 octaves in the centre that move a lot, the difference between the centre and the extremes is very audible (extremes almost does not move usually once the piano is set)

If you feel the need for 3 tunings that mean 2 possible things to me :
the moisture content of the air varies enough to make you hear the tuning movement
The tuner use some extreme stretch (very low or very high) that is then less resistive against the seasonal changes.
The tuner does not set the tuning firmly enough (that takes time, most of us have a good number of pianos to tune a day and to be honest I prefer to see a piano twice a year, then I have less tuning time and I can make a little maintenance.

That said, I have a good number of professional pianists, teatchers and jazz players, in my customers.

Some pianos I tune once a year, some customers wait until the tuning is really gone and that takes really at 2 years or more despite a strong use.

Something I finally understood is that the piano change only with temperature and humidity once you have set it well. a string will move if banged strong, but not if you play quietly enough.
There is an "unison shape" that is very resistive to mistuning (the "smiley shape") I certainly wish to understand where this stability comes from, but it is easy to verify on any nicely sounding unison after some time , you will have the 2 outer strings coupling strong, and the central one a little low, it is just a "natural shape" where the energy circulates well.

To get there (stability) the tuner may "tune the tuning pin" as much as the wire, as the control on the tuning pin tension is what allows it.

it cannot be done without making "concert tuning (that mean to me more attention to firmness of tuning pins than usual.

Apparently most of us are not tuning the last tenths of cts, but expect the piano to settle there, some with a strong test blow, others by leaving the 3 strings exactly the same.

Leaving the wire and the pin exactly where we want and knowing it is the final position is a luxury that many of us dont use.

As the whole piano is moving while tension is added to be confident of the final pitch is usually out of question. we come very very near but there is a grey zone left to the instrument itself.
Working with an ETD allow to learn to apprehend that drift well, but in the end, once the unisons are tuned, the ETD is closed and anyway cannot provide useful information, so a grey zone is still there.

The final perceived pitch is near what the ETD have proposed, but depending of the moment the justness is apprehended the numbers may vary more than expected. 2 strings coupling most often are pitched a little lower than one. 3 strings and every variation is possible, a tendency to raise as the opposite (in the range of a few 10ths of cts).


Just my personal cts ...

Best regards

I wanted to add a new technique I have stumbled across (new for me anyway), in direct relation to this post.

I kept thinking about this problem (getting in-tune single, double and triple octaves) and trying to understand how it relates to the way I tune. Specifically, my tuning process has matured from tuning clean octaves, to tuning pure 12ths, then clean double octaves, but always compromising. e.g. slightly wide (beatless) octaves, slightly narrow (originally pure) 12ths, slightly wide double octaves.

Now, using the aural checks below, I am able to tune consistently wide (beatless) octaves, consistently narrow 12ths, consistently wide double octaves, but pure triple octaves. Note that the wide and narrow qualities are confirmed only with checks. I.e. the octave, 12th, double octave all sound clean (beatless) and in tune. The shock for me was to stumble upon this way to tune the triple octave pure and have all these other intervals clean and in tune. Which means, our OP should be expecting single, double, and triple octaves all sounding in tune from a good tuning.

Here is how I do it: When tuning a note that has a triple octave below that has already been tuned, I look for these confirmations.

Let's use F6 as the tuning note, F3 as the triple
octave below. (I am not proving these relationships as that would just make the post too long. Email me if you want me to.)

Listen for these relationships when checking the beat speeds.
(1)Db4F4 slow
(2)Db4F6 medium
(3)Db4Bb4 fast
(4)Bb3Db4 faster
(5)F3Db4 medium

Notes:
(1)(2) confirms a wide 4:1 double octave
(1)(3) confirms a wide fourth
(2)(3) confirms a narrow 3:1 12th
(3)(4) confirms a narrow 6:3 octave
(2)(5) confirms a pure 8:1 triple octave

Tuning the triple octave pure and confirming all these sizes makes a nice upper temperament, but I start tuning the qualities as soon as possible, in anticipation of matching up all these intervals when they are all available to be checked. I.e. at C5, I start confirming the narrow 3:1 12th. By now I have a good idea by how much.

I tried to make this post as concise and clear as possible. I hope some techs find this interesting and can use this technique to really make the upper section sing in tune if you are not already doing so. Please respond if you have any questions.

My own testing method is to check octaves and double octaves (sometimes more), fifths and fifths plus one and two octaves, fourths and fourths plus one and two octaves, all of which should be close to beatless. There is, of course, a slight beat expected on the fourths and fifths. However, if one of them stands out, I adjust in the direction of the other. I also test major thirds and major thirds plus one and two octaves, which should all beat as close to the same rate as possible.

Mark:

Our experiences differ. I have found in all cases that when pure 12ths are tuned (except with wacko wound strings...) wide double octaves and narrow triple octaves are the result. The single octaves progress from 6:3 (or wider) in the bass to 4:2 in the middle and between 4:2 and 2:1 higher up. Where these changes occur depends on the scaling. Generally a studio upright will have 4:2 octaves in the temperment, a spinet between 2:1 and 4:2 in the temperment and a decent sized grand between 4:2 and 6:3 in the temperment. I have also analyzed these relationship mathematically and it confirms what I hear. OK, so you hear something different.

Hi Jeff,

You are right. In general, higher octaves are taught to be tuned less narrow, 2:1 for example in the treble, because the higher coincidental partial, 4:2 and 6:3, are so faint that their beating is not heard, hence the 2:1 sounds good by itself.

However, it is not just the quality of the octave we should concern ourselves with. These higher notes must be in tune with the lower intervals. I concentrate on those intervals so the undamped treble strings ring sympathetically with the lower intervals. So the actual size of the octaves does not concern me. The byproduct of my approach is not just less narrow octaves on top, but consistently less narrow by the same amount, each one.

My checks use M3, M6, M17, m3, m6. So when comparing to lower interval beats which were all set even, all the higher ones beat even as well. See? I don't try for even M17 for example, they just happen. Trying for even M17 is putting the cart before the horse. You can get even M17 and bad compound octaves for example.

As for pure 12ths creating wide double octaves and narrow triple octaves, that is not what I've found. The pure 12th creates wide double octaves and slightly wide triple octaves. Tempering the 12th creates less wide double octaves (beatless) and pure triple octaves. I am working on a proof for that and will post it if I figure it out.

You said you have already figured this out mathematically. Can you post your proof?

If you want the undamped treble strings to ring sympathetically with the lower interals, how about pure twelfths?



Since you show true interest, give me a week or three to work something up. What I have is a little out of date and not really clean. I'll start a new Topic when the time comes.

To give a preview, it has to do with the partial number, the semitone span of intervals, and the iH slope. Just like the theoretical pitches do not double each octave because of iH, neither do the beatrates of intervals. The wide RBIs less than double each octave while the narrow RBIs more than double. (Ever wonder why you can use 10th and 17th so high into the treble?) The SBIs act differently depending on the iH slope and also on the stretch scheme. The 12ths are a powerful tool however they might used.

Re: pure 12ths. I used to tune pure 12ths for that reason, but recently have experimented with tempering the 12ths in favour of a cleaner double octave. Pure 12ths really do sacrifice the double octave. Also, the 12th is not the only interval that will set up sympathetic vibration. The compound octaves do as well so that is why I favour the tempered 12th; so the double octave is cleaner and rings as well.

May I suggest that we post videos or recordings to prove our thesis as opposed to mathematical treatese? It may be more palatable to the larger audience and also more convincing. I'll see what I can do.

Mark:

Sorry, I have no AV equipment.

Ah, I found the 2-1/2 year old Topic that has what I need to get this started:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1445359/1.html

Like I said, give me some time and I will start a new Topic. I am tempted to create an executable program for this and make it available (with a text file of the vb code). We'll see...

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for taking the time to find your old posts.

I read through some of them. I have to be honest. As a mechanical engineer and professional musician and piano tuner, I have delved deeply into mathematics and also holistic practical performance. I have always found mathematical analysis to come up short of high level practical performance execution.

For example, your analysis uses 4:2 octaves as assumptions. Regardless of what the graphs show, 4:2 octaves are just not good enough.

Also, your assertion of always beating partials somewhere in the octave is argued by many experienced tuners, including myself, claiming that octaves can be tuned beatless. How do you explain that? Remember, I'm an engineer, I know the math, and I know the math says it isn't possible. However, as a human piano tuner, I do it every day.

My claim of being able to create in tune single, double, and triple octaves can only be proven in practice; I have to post a video proving my technique. I think then you will hear what I am talking about. Until then...

+1

+1

Mathematics is more than numbers, so math can be used in tuning. However, there is a lot of the physics that is not very clear. I talk about it a bit with a friend from my college days who went on to work at Lawrence Berkeley Lab as a mathematician, and he agrees that we both use a lot of math, but in different ways, and it is not certain who does the most useful work.

I pointed out once before that we do not even have a real accurate definition of the pitch number of a piano tone because the vibrations are not strictly periodic. That is why I said that "in tune" is a vague term.

Mark:

I am mistaken. You do not show a "true interest." It seems that what you think you hear must be what everybody actually hears, but are sometimes mistaken. And since you have "delved deeply into mathematics" you do not need me to show you the proof. You can come up with your own proof. But why bother? If it does not agree with what you think you hear, the math is obviously wrong.

As I said:


Let's leave it at that. I am not interested in some "Schwartz" comparison.

Hi Jeff,

With your permission I will still post the video if I can get around to it.

With my permission?

Folks, am I missing something here? It wouldn't be the first time.

Hi Jeff,

I tried to send you a PM but your account doesn't accept them.

Yes, you are missing something here. I asked your permission as a matter of courtesy since you feel I do not show a "true interest" in the subject. I found your post to be a bit defensive and I didn't want to agrivate you any further.

I also feel that your 'true interest' is in the playing with of numbers and not the practical execution of the art of piano tuning. Please don't get me wrong. I do not feel that an interest in the purely mathematical aspect of piano tuning is inferior. I admire anyone who can "delve deeply" into that and come up with some interesting proofs. The proofs I am interested in are more practical and similar to the ones I've already posted. My critiques of your approach were from that perspective, and not from that of the validity of the mathematical analysis.

I hope you are ok with that and do not take the posts too personally. I have more than a true interest in this subject. It is my passion, as I know it is yours. I hope we can see the validity in each other's perspective.

Peace,

With regard to “proofs” here is our former Prime Minister on the subject of proofs that need to be proven. What he actually says is below the video in text.

A proof is a proof

Mark:

I am frustrated with myself for jumping to a conclusion. I am not going to say just what it was.

Here's the thing: Through the years I have read that people hear things different than I do. And I have read that the math says one thing when I have found that it says another. And I have found that what I hear and the math that I use agree with each other.

OK, so you hear something different than my ears hear, and perhaps your math says something different than my math says, and perhaps what you hear and what your math says do not agree with each other.

Post what you like. I am confused by your courtesy.

Hey Jeff,

No worries. I suggest a Skype meeting where we can demonstrate each others techniques. Send me a PM.

Mark

No thank you.

From A#4, I tune 4:2 or 4:2+ octaves up. All depending, from about F5 >, I start tuning & checking my 3rd and 17th, for example, F3/A3 and F3/A5 etc...and continue up as far into the treble/high treble as I can on any particular piano. Then it is single octaves up to the top, either melodic or harmonic or both.

Sometimes, I tune M6/M17ths up through the treble.

Going down from F3, I tune a 5th down, check my 4th and octave and move on down as far as the piano will allow. For single bass strings, I use a variety of techniques, once again, all depending on the piano. It may be ghosting or it may be making the notes sound as good as I can get them to sound with octave, 10th, 17th, 12th and double octave.

Ok, I admit, I use a lot of checks as I tune, I actually, as I wrote earlier, tune with my checks and check with my tune!?!

For the high treble, if it is a good quality piano, and I am tuning for a discerning client, I have begun using the chord of nature, which I think Kent Swafford is the author of.

In general, I tune whole tone tuning. I strive for as clean sounding tuning as possible, smoothing out the 12th and D8ve. I used to stretch my tunings quiet abit but now prefer as clean sounding/just tuning as the piano will allow me.