Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#2002952 - 12/22/12 04:46 AM Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Bill Bremmer has written,

"Tuning the various Types of Octaves

Now, to achieve the optimum compromise between a 4:2 and 6:3 octave, sharpen the A3 very slightly so that neither check for a 6:3 or a 4:2 octave tests perfectly. In other words, the test for a 4:2 octave should reveal a slightly faster F3-A4 M10 than F3-A3 M3 and the test for a 6:3 octave should reveal a slightly slower C4-A4 M6 than A3-C4 m3. When you have found the spot for A3 which reveals this slight discrepancy between the 4:2 and 6:3 tests, you will hear that the A3-A4 octave has a very slow beat to it, about one beat in every two seconds. This is now considered the optimum width for the initial A3-A4 octave in Equal Temperament and what is used by
most CTE’s to set up the Master Tuning for the Tuning Exam.

It is also the equivalent to within a very small and negligible degree of a 4:2 octave plus one cent. This is the width of octave that Dr. Al Sanderson used to obtain the amount of stretch needed for optimal piano tuning when he created the calculation for his Electronic Tuning Device, the Sanderson Accu-Tuner. In this kind of compromise, note that none of the coincident partials are in tune or match exactly with each other. This may also be an example of the whole octave sound of which Virgil Smith often speaks. This, almost but not quite perfect tuning, is an example of the kind of compromise which is necessary to defeat the problem and challenge of inharmonicity, the way to achieve the finest tuning possible from the modern piano, throughout its entire range."

Now clearly a 4:2+ octave has a slight/slow beat to it. Either the 4:2+ octave has a beat or it does not have a beat, it is either beatless or it is beating, however slowly. In other words, it sounds or does not sound beatless!

I am saying that the 4:2+ octave does not sound beatless and that one definitely hear a slight swell/beat in it. Basically, it sounds like a slightly narrowed/tempered P5.

So that is why I am saying that it is the 4:2 octave which actually is the beatless octave in the middle of the piano. Please take note that I am not speaking about the so-called "optimal place of the octave", though surely this too is a moot point amongst tuners.





Edited by Mark Davis (12/22/12 08:17 AM)
Edit Reason: removed unnecessary content
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
(ad PTG 568) Win a Year Journal Subscription
PTG 57th Annual Convention - Atlanta
#2002967 - 12/22/12 06:06 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark you wrote,

"It needs to be repeated that, if one was to tune an octave to sound as clean and clear as possible, concentrating on eliminating the higher partial noise, and then analyse its size, one would find the octave to be a wide 4:2 and a narrow 6:3. Try it. It "sounds" beatless but we know that there are beats at all the partials. Why and how does it "sound" beatless? Cancelling is the only explanation I can come up with. But an explanation is not really needed, only the experience of hearing it and analysing it and coming to that conclusion, re:size and quality."

M3=M10, 4;2 octave is a just octave,therefore beatless and clean. The M3<M10, 4:2+ is wide, meaning not just/is beating/and is unnatural stretch?

Surely, an interval is just or tempered, and from what I understand, just is just and tempered is tempered/beating. If the F3-F4 octave is just, a 4:2, then it is not beating. But if it is tempered to a 4:2+, it is now beating and sounds like it too.

An explanation is necessary and the hearing of it,otherwise the proof would not be in the eating of the pudding?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003005 - 12/22/12 08:47 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I'll send a video. Wish me luck. But even with a video, if you are focusing your hearing on the partials, you will hear a slow beat. You should be listening to the "whole octave sound" as Virgil Smith encouraged, listening more like a musician, less like a piano technician. Maybe it is an aural illusion, but one that I definitely hear and use to tune octaves, without the need to use checks.

Cheers,
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2003021 - 12/22/12 10:02 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, I tune whole tone. I have Virgils book too. I also do have a DVD by Jim Coleman tuning the Baldassin/Sanderson Temprament, not only does he speak about a slight swell in the A3-A4 octave and A2-A4 double octave, one actually hears it, when playing and listening in whole tone.

A 4:2+ octave was tuned for the A3-A4 octave and a 6:3+ (if i remember correctly) octave for the A3-A2 octave, thereby producing a 4:1+ (a wide not just) double octave.

So I have actually heard it, apart from reading about and I have tuned it too.

For a 4:2+ octave the 5th needs to beat slightly slower than the 4th, thus producing a slightly wide and beating octave.

For a 4:2 just octave, the 5th and 4th will be beating the same, thus producing a clean sounding octave.

It's simple, that is just how it is, nothing fancy.

Another thing, since you brought it up, to tune octaves without using checks is not advisable. I would think that it would not produce as good a tuning as is possible.

A technique which Virgil wrote about is, " The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessaery to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks. Checks are used before the note is tuned to determine if the note is sharp or flat and by how much,during the tuning, and after it is tuned to check the accuracy of the tuning."

Thanks,


Edited by Mark Davis (12/22/12 02:35 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003037 - 12/22/12 10:32 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Bill Bremmer says the following, "When you have found the spot for A3 which reveals this slight discrepancy between the 4:2 and 6:3 tests, you will hear that the A3-A4 octave has a very slow beat to it, about one beat in every two seconds."

Bill is speaking about a 4:2+ octave.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003069 - 12/22/12 12:04 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
The 4:2 6:3 test is deceptive, and it does not help the ear to perceive a nice octave plus differences in iH nd spectra make it just an approximate rule for beginners, not something we can refer constantly.

To me the whole partial match method gave the problem of being disrupted by the unison tuning, where the second or 3d partials are more or less emphases, and then I will would not bet on the similarity of their justness with the one measured on a single string.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003078 - 12/22/12 12:29 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Kamin
The 4:2 6:3 test is deceptive, and it does not help the ear to perceive a nice octave plus differences in iH nd spectra make it just an approximate rule for beginners, not something we can refer constantly.


Ok, Isaac, please explain, how one perceives a nice octave?

The problem I find with some tuners is that they like to couch everything in the Esoteric and subjective, and leave behind the objective. Usually you will find such folks making claims of superior tuning. Yes, there is room for movement in an octave or any other interval, but at the end of the day, one has to have something that you measure by for accurate tuning.

Please also do explain how you go about tuning. It surely would be useful and helpful to many!

Thank you
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003085 - 12/22/12 01:09 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Hi ,it depends of the acoustics of the room and the voicing, I was confident with that "measuring" method till Inoticed that the 6:3 can be used as an extreme limit eventually, but I stopped totally to test min third and min tenth, even M3 and M10, those comparaisons between diffenet intervals are not precise, the beatings are uneven, due to fluctuations of the beat volume they look as if they accelereate then slow.enventually the 10th 17th gives some information, I talk of tuning by ear indeed.

I was also stated that the iH is too impredicteable, may vary from string to string, may depend of the force of the stroke, so basing the tuning only on iH is at last dangerous.

I dont pretend to any superior result I just dont need those tests now.

In the end of course a concert tuner that need to tune so much pianos a day can also use and ETD and provide accepteable "secure" results, and have a good wallet at the end of the day.

All situations arise, from the technician who spend a full week on a grand Bechstein to voice and regulate the piano to the customer desire, (new hammers installed and keys balanced at the shop prior to that), to the one that spend 1 or 2 day on a previously "restored" grand only to have a more pleasing piano, or the "usual" "tuner's day" where the customer have only a moderate fee to pay for a finally relatively fast done job. (sometime as fast as less than an hour)

Tuning is very important if the tuner is not experimented yet, but once you are mastering tuning and pin setting, the next level(s) of quality are obtained with very differnt things than absolutely perfect progression of intervals, high consanance and nice open unisons, in fact to make that nice tuning many things are in order that will make it easy and more fast.

you take the piano possibilities (that are often hidden below a basic regulation) , and allow the piano to have them expressed.

Not trying to hide voicing problems with regulation or the opposite is just the trap of that job.






Ev


Edited by Kamin (12/22/12 01:11 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003093 - 12/22/12 01:29 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Well Isaac, Virgil used checks and I would say that Rick Baldassin used checks, and many other top notch tuners, simply from observing all the information about checks.

Ok, one can check one's work with SBI's or RBI's and there may be other ways to gauge one's work but nevertheless, checking is essential.

But still you have not been clear in how to tune octaves, double octaves, 12ths, 19ths etc... without checking. How does one know when each interval is where it should be?

Let's leave the regulation and voicing out. It is not necessary for what we are talking about.

Thanks,
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003095 - 12/22/12 01:34 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
sorry but I dont know, I want a progression of FBI, nice sounding SBI, I never check for octaves doubles and triples again, I hear if they need to be enlarged, at some point in the tuning, sometime I rewind and go back to octave 5 or the break, but I hear the tone in my mind, sorry. I can even tune a piano while listening to music (up to some point) this is incrusted in my ear, due to a lot of tuning, with differnt methods.
comparing diffent intervals is tiring, I try to stay quiet while tuning.
If I where doing much more concert tunings, the stress of the situation certainly would push me to use more checks.


PS One thing I check when in the 5th and 6th octave is the speed of 17ths and 24 ths.., generally speaking I refer to the middle of the piano and temperament zone .., for the rest , I play many usual intervals inside the octave for each new note


Edited by Kamin (12/22/12 02:50 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003115 - 12/22/12 02:16 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Thanks Isaac for chiming in. Atleast you admit to the necessity
of checks in concert work.

Regards,
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003130 - 12/22/12 02:57 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
rysowers Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 2401
Loc: Olympia, WA
What people need to keep in mind is that a beatless octave is almost always something theoretical and is not something that is practiced in reality. There are limits to what tuners can hear - can you hear the difference between an octave beating .2 or .3 per second? What about .02 or .03 times a second? On the PTG tuning exam I can tell you that "pure sounding unisons" when measured are often .2 or .3 cents apart.

Slightly false tones in strings, and slight difference between strings give pianos a complex tone when all unisons are open that defies any attempts at pure beatlessness.

I do not use temperament strips when I tune. I tune unisons as I go. So I think more in terms of "sweet spots" than absolute beat rates. To me, smoothly progressing 6th, 10th, and 17ths that are lively but not too edgy (I know, that's subjective - but that's the art of tuning!) I find the fast beating intervals are the fine sandpaper of a good tuning, and have the largest impact on the musical quality of the piano.

With open strings, octaves are often too nebulous/complex to be a very accurate gauge, because most octaves will be made up of 6 strings. With a temperament strip you can be deceived into thinking you are being more accurate than you really are.

I have found that the perfect tuning continues to be elusive. As my skills have progressed, my ears just get pickier and pickier, so I am still not completely satisfied, and I doubt I ever will be.

Listening to the "whole tone" I believe is a gimmicky way of saying you're not paying as close attention. When you step away from an oil painting you don't see the brush strokes, does that mean the painting itself is more prefect?
_________________________
Ryan Sowers,
Pianova Piano Service
Olympia, WA
www.pianova.net

Top
#2003141 - 12/22/12 03:27 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
pppat Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/09/08
Posts: 1195
Loc: Jakobstad, Finland
Hi all,

there's also another thing to consider. If you tune a full length, high-quality instrument like a Fazioli 278 or a Steinway D, in some octaves there is only a negligible difference between the 2:1/4:2/6:3 octave. At least as I hear it, and as far as the checks tell. On the other hand, on a short instrument with less than ideal scaling, not only will there be a huge difference between these octave sizes - sometimes they won´t even line up like they should.

Just something I think is worth remembering. Bill's suggestion requires a piano with "good enough" length and scaling.
_________________________
Patrick Wingren, RPT

Senior Lecturer (jazz piano, composition, music theory, conducting) @ Novia University of Applied Sciences, Jakobstad, Finland
- - - -
Dedicated to learning the craft of tuning. Getting better.

Top
#2003147 - 12/22/12 03:42 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
What a tuner can hear is the progressiveness of fast beating intervals, , and that without being too much attentive.

The problem with tuning with unisons as you go is that every new tuned note lower the precedent, so the tuner is working in a sort of light pitch raising mode, he also use the unison to correct the pitch if necessary.

That last point is similar to when strip muting, at the difference that when strip mutiing, the lowering is more predictible, in my opinion, and the sensation of security is better.

Hopefully unisons allow to push the pitch high or to lower it, that is how I understand that anyway.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003258 - 12/22/12 10:05 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Dave B Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 08/01/11
Posts: 1890
Loc: Philadelphia area
I's my understanding that Bill Bremmer uses this description of the A3-A4 octave to allow for the different beat rates that the octaves will divide into. I believe he's warning against narrowing or overly widening the octave to accommodate specific beat rates as the octave is divided.

But I've been wrong before. It might be best to ask Bill himself.

Top
#2003402 - 12/23/12 08:06 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: pppat]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: pppat
Hi all,

there's also another thing to consider. If you tune a full length, high-quality instrument like a Fazioli 278 or a Steinway D, in some octaves there is only a negligible difference between the 2:1/4:2/6:3 octave. At least as I hear it, and as far as the checks tell. On the other hand, on a short instrument with less than ideal scaling, not only will there be a huge difference between these octave sizes - sometimes they won´t even line up like they should.

Just something I think is worth remembering. Bill's suggestion requires a piano with "good enough" length and scaling.


Hence a high iH instrument will be voiced with little power at FFF so to have the benefit of that enlarging of the spectra at moderate and light play.
Fazioli are in the low iH range, hence the straightening of the tone, sound a bit "clinical" to me by the absence of defects in iH.
And then, no way to enlarge / push the spectra, it sound unnatural very soon and FBI are really too fast then.

My guess generally speaking is that IH helps for tone projection, then a Fazioli would be more adapted to recordings or smaller spaces...
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003429 - 12/23/12 09:23 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
RonTuner Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1617
Loc: Chicagoland
I yanked this graph off the web:



If we consider the red line as the apparent beat(s)speed between two notes an octave apart as one is moved from flat to sharp, there's that little range in the middle where the octave is "best". That, I believe, is what Virgil talked about when tuning via a "whole sound" approach. No checks, just movement across the zone to determine the best placement.

Some octaves have a much steeper graph, some wider - which respond to those octaves that are easy to tune, while some sit on a knife edge for finding just the right place. And then there are some octaves which never seem to get "still", no matter where you move the string! But by tuning with movement across the center line, it is easier to find the center "zone" than by nudging bit by bit closer and then trying to test if you ended up in the "right place".

Be careful of applying methods developed on larger, or better scaled instruments for general use. (for example, realize that by the time Virgil was writing his book, he had mostly limited his tuning to Steinway grands...)

Ron Koval
_________________________
Piano/instrument technician
www.ronkoval.com
@ronkoval

my piano videos:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=drwoodwind


Top
#2003555 - 12/23/12 03:39 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Steinways have a moderate but normal iH, similar to Yamaha.

This allow for some variations in octave size, some can be covered by the enlarging of the temperament or some can be reserved to the extreme of the keyboard.

Fazioli can only be tuned "straight" and "pure" no enlarging of octave is really allowed because of low iH the spectra is concentrated, there is no space to allow pushing toware 6:3 for instance.

Some pianos have a huge iH, and the tuner have a tendency to enlarge the octave a lot, while it is not always necessary, but too small octaves sound nasal on those pianos.

With high iH, "tempered" intervals are beating slowly, Fast beating intervals are slower, the tone grasp the ear easily, but dynamics is reduced noticeably.

Older pianos with old wire have a raise in iH, hence their need for soft hammers. Then as the soundboard also does not provide a large dynamic plage the success of refelted and soft pressed hammers on old pianos is explaned.

New hammers will then be voiced so to have mostly fundamental and a little second partial, the top of the spectra stay limited and is out of focus.

Some musicians or pianists notice that the pitch is changing between the attack and the sustain. I dont really know how the tuner use that effect while tuning but it is certainly a part of the mix.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003560 - 12/23/12 04:04 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
There is something that limits the precision of the perception for beats.

As the tone diseappear following a slow curve it sort of make the beginning of a slow beat, it can be as one beat every 3 or 5 seconds. So any beat caused by frequency shifts can hide in that without being noticed.

Then coupling can be obtained at a partial level, while making a frequency shift for the fundamental, that is why I believe it is important to tune the beginning of the tone and the rest. The energy level immediately after the attack is probably telling me that I am in phase at the fundamental level, then coupling the partials is worked later, during the sustain, as a differnt part of tone, that is how I perceive the tone anyway.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003745 - 12/24/12 02:06 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: rysowers]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
[/quote]
Originally Posted By: rysowers
What people need to keep in mind is that a beatless octave is almost always something theoretical and is not something that is practiced in reality. There are limits to what tuners can hear - can you hear the difference between an octave beating .2 or .3 per second? What about .02 or .03 times a second? On the PTG tuning exam I can tell you that "pure sounding unisons" when measured are often .2 or .3 cents apart.


Ryan, yes, as you say there is this imperceptible measurement. This is reality, as is the reality of pure/just sounding intervals too. As you ask, can one hear the difference between an octave beating .2 or .3 bps? In other words, tuning an octave beating at .2bps, sounds pure/just/clean?

Originally Posted By: rysowers
To me, smoothly progressing 6th, 10th, and 17ths that are lively but not too edgy (I know, that's subjective - but that's the art of tuning!) I find the fast beating intervals are the fine sandpaper of a good tuning, and have the largest impact on the musical quality of the piano.


Agreed, to a certain degree. As someone once said (I think it may have been Newton Hunt), the SBI's are the stretch indicators, and the RBI's are the incremental smoothers.

The other thing is this, as one checks one's work/tuning as it develops and progesses, with all the available checks, SBI's and RBI's, then one is tuning objectively and one is in a position to make the subjective and subtle changes (the art of tuning)that are necessary.

Originally Posted By: rysowers
. Listening to the "whole tone" I believe is a gimmicky way of saying you're not paying as close attention. When you step away from an oil painting you don't see the brush strokes, does that mean the painting itself is more prefect


Ryan, if Virgil Smith's whole tone tuning was gimmicky, how did he become to be known as a renowned piano tuner? Was not his tuning accurate and high end? Was it just gimmicky?

Secondly, when listening to 3rds, 6ths, 10ths, 17ths, 8ves, D8ves, 12ths, 19ths etc...is one not listening to whole tone intervals?

The important thing is to check your work as you progress through the tuning, so that one has the wood and the trees in view, not missing anything, as much as is possible to the fallible human mind.

So, as I have been saying, one need's to listen to the whole tone SBI's and listen to the whole tone RBI's to make sure one's work is as accurate as possible, whether it be for E.T or H.T.

Apart from speaking about clean/pure/just octaves and double octaves etc... one must not forget that this is only one way of tuning the piano. Another thing, for concert work in bigger halls one will need to stretch more and accordingly.


Edited by Mark Davis (12/24/12 02:37 AM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003758 - 12/24/12 02:34 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: RonTuner]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Be careful of applying methods developed on larger, or better scaled instruments for general use. (for example, realize that by the time Virgil was writing his book, he had mostly limited his tuning to Steinway grands...)


Ron, which some folks don't seem to be getting is this,

I am just saying that one needs to check one's work, whether it be spinet, studio or grand. Check your workk as it develops and progresses through the tuning. Now, one needs to realise that in what I am saying, one may not tune a piano as quickly as other folks but in the end it is solid, stable, musical and accurate.

Now, in saying that it may take longer to tune, this needs to be qualified by saying different pianos tune differently and there are different circumstances and situations involved which will make the tuning progress faster or more slowly.

All depending, it takes me anything from +- 45 minutes to 2 hours to tune a piano, from spinet to a large concert grand, which may involve some pitch adjusting too.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003775 - 12/24/12 04:42 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
When we check our tuning, for instance, tuning a just/clean/pure double octave, what should it be sounding like (whole tone) and what should the M3/M17 be sounding like (whole tone)?

The whole tone just/beatless double octave should sound clean/beatless when checked and listened to as an SBI and the M3/M17 should sound similar/beating, M3=M17, when checked/listened to as an RBI.

To substantiate how just/wide/narrow the double octave is, one can use the P19, D8ve, 12th, 8ve, M3, M10 and M17 (these are just a few tests/checks). Listening to and adjusting/tweaking each interval involved accordingly, to validate and execute any particular interval you are tuning.

The beat speeds/ratios of the intervals and texture of the intervals are all guides and clues as to how your work is progressing and to what needs to be changed or left alone.

Then again, not to take away from all that I have said, Tunelab really does a fantastic job too!

Thanks,







Edited by Mark Davis (12/24/12 06:39 AM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003817 - 12/24/12 08:33 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Bojan Babic Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/15/09
Posts: 325
Loc: Vojvodina, Serbia
When you determine the type of an octave, do you do that by ear, or only by the ETD?
_________________________
Bojan Babic
piano technician and tuner
Sid, Vojvodina, Serbia
_____________________________
bojanbabic@yahoo.com
www.klaviri.blogspot.com

Top
#2003845 - 12/24/12 09:35 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Bojan, from what I understand about ETD tuning, is that one has an option to adjust the tuning calculation by various means to what one desires.

However, as much as I understand, the principles of SBI and RBI tuning should and do remain the same in order to gauge what is taking place before,during and after the tuning.

In other words, for instance a just 4:2 octave is just that, whether it is tuned and checked aurally or by ETD. Checking an ETD octave, for example, a 6:3/4:2 octave in the middle of the piano would and should give one an RBI check so that the lower M3 is slower than the M10 and then one can listen to the octave itself to confirm whether one likes or dislikes/agrees or disagrees with the outcome and then make the necessary adjustment. Does the M3=M10 or M3>M10 or M3<M10 and then make, hopefully, the minor adjusments accordingly.

In tuning the octave in the middle of the piano, say for instance the F3-F4, to whatever type of octave, one also has the option of checking the P4/P5 and m3/M6 within to check what is going on.

Until there is further light on this, this is my experience, understanding and practice.

So, in brief, I think it is just as Rick Baldassin has written, which basically explains what I am saying, so much better and clearer, the bridging of aural and ETD tuning. Atleast this has been my experience.

Thanks


Edited by Mark Davis (12/24/12 09:42 AM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003950 - 12/24/12 12:58 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
To be clear I just almost totally stopped checking octave sizes, it is not my priority.

sometime in case of doubt I will try a M3 M10 check in the temperament octave, but I more get an ear "grip" to the fullness of my octave, not tryg to force one direction or another, expecting mostly the feedback from instrument and the room to tell me my octave is OK.

Way more quieter to tune that way.

There is a quiet spot, certainly influenced by other intervals, once the octave is prooved to be good, it is easy to reproduce it.


The ETD is interesting as a limiter, aural tuning will tend to be more open. But that does not mean I will agree with the octave types proposed, nor I will take the trouble to regulate the ETD and then be confident in it.



Edited by Kamin (12/24/12 01:00 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003965 - 12/24/12 01:33 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Kamin
To be clear I just almost totally stopped checking octave sizes, it is not my priority.

sometime in case of doubt I will try a M3 M10 check in the temperament octave, but I more get an ear "grip" to the fullness of my octave, not tryg to force one direction or another, expecting mostly the feedback from instrument and the room to tell me my octave is OK.


I agree, to a certain degree Isaac and just to be clear, I am not saying I am the be all and end all to tuning. I am trying to write about my experience in tuning and I think it lines up with other peoples work that have written far better about it than I have.

I just find that for a better, more sure and accurate tuning I check my work. Once again, I re-iterate what Virgil Smith has said,

"The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessaery to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks. Checks are used before the note is tuned to determine if the note is sharp or flat and by how much,during the tuning, and after it is tuned to check the accuracy of the tuning."

This is my understanding and practice.

Originally Posted By: Kamin
The ETD is interesting as a limiter, aural tuning will tend to be more open. But that does not mean I will agree with the octave types proposed, nor I will take the trouble to regulate the ETD and then be confident in it.


My ascertion is that a well executed hybrid ETD/Aural tuning allows one much more opportunity to experiment wth and adjust stretch and far easier and more controllable than purely aural tuning.

YMMV
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003969 - 12/24/12 01:39 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
EDT is indeed excellent to experiment, but tend to push me away from tuning, I feel as ruled by a machine which I dont like, because at some point I have lost my judgement.

That is the impression it gives me, even if the results may sound excellent, they are a surprise in the end, not something done consienciously.

My opinion, but I dont wish to argue, I respect any other, in the end I like some tunings more than others, and it is so difficult to say why, it can be due to consonance, eveness, unison quality, adequation with the instrument...
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003981 - 12/24/12 01:56 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Isaac, I began learnng to tune aurally in 2002 and began tuning aurally for clients in 2005.

I began experimenting with ETD tuning in 2010 and began tuning almost exclusively with and ETD in 2011. In 2012, I began returning to tuning aurally.

It all depends on how I am feeling on any given day. I may tune with an ETD or aurally and or anything in between.

A change is as good as a holiday.

Thanks,
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2003992 - 12/24/12 02:14 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Mark I tuned with all kind of ETD, and in concert environment, so I will not say it did not provide something useful to me, as having a security, being able to make a decent work for the last piano of the day or changing the pitch 1 hour before a rehearsal..

But I finally was tired of the machines, the kind of perfection they provide plus some other drawbacks, as the overpull mod ethat should be used almost always if one want the end result to correspond with the display. Also the ETD does not react to temperature change, i was obliged to have a thermometer at hand, after finishing a tuning at a differnt pitch than the begin.

In the end the main drawback is that you have to wait for the display to judge your pitch. In the meantime no way to make checks (it disrupt the display) and no way to work the appreciation of pitch immediately at the attack.

Then, too much for me, but I know a few concert tuners that dont care much for the piano's own resonance and use the result computed by the ETD.

For some reason, I always have find them a little not natural, too smooth or too "perfect".
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2003998 - 12/24/12 02:34 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
I like gadgets and living in this technological age, I think it is necessary to get to grips with and stay in touch with the ETD's and tunng software of today.

However, I do think that it is also necessary for people to get to understand the aural tuning theory and aural application of it too.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004205 - 12/25/12 05:08 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
I just realised this morning that I am leaving out an important piece of information from Virgil Smiths book, which explains the reason I have so monotonously been saying what I am saying.

"Tuning checks are essential for evaluating the accuracy of the tuning, both during the tuning and when it is completed. It is important to know that each note being tuned is correct, because of the other notes being tuned to it.

Much time can be wasted in retuning notes that were incorrectly tuned to notes not correctly tuned. An octave or interval may sound acceptable, but still not be in tune.
Playing an octave or chord is not a reliable tuning check; neither is playing a piece after the tuning is finished. A skilled tuner can eliminate that "out of tune" feeling (sound) and make the tuning sound acceptable in a few minutes, but the piano will not really be in tune.

Originally Posted By: rysowers
I have found that the perfect tuning continues to be elusive. As my skills have progressed, my ears just get pickier and pickier, so I am still not completely satisfied, and I doubt I ever will be.


Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Be careful of applying methods developed on larger, or better scaled instruments for general use. (for example, realize that by the time Virgil was writing his book, he had mostly limited his tuning to Steinway grands...)


Ryans and Rons statements are both correct but also need to be added to.

Though there are numerous reasons to take into account as to why one can or cannot achieve a top quality tuning on any given piano, the reality and necessity to strive for and put into place what Virgil Smith has said about tuning checks is of utmost importance if one would desire to arrive at a place in one’s own tuning career of being a professional piano tuner.


Edited by Mark Davis (12/25/12 05:10 AM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004209 - 12/25/12 05:30 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Seasoned tuners have the tone in the ear, particularely for a given piano model, if a tuning have just slept a little, as it is commnon with temperature changes, be sure the tuner will not make a full tuning, taking the risk to lower stability.

So the "concert tuning" on pianos that are often tuned/checked twice a day, will sound similar from one day to the othere but rarely it will be exactly..

Of course checks are necessary, even if restricted to checking the ^progression of fast beating intervals, but on a well know model, an experimented tuner can use one simple test and obtain a good tuning, I have been seeing that often.

When tuning using conscientiously the resonance of the tuning, this give a sort of check, that does not imply comparing intervals.
I often if in doubt of the pitch in the 5th or 6th octave, simply test a 17Th or an octave more, as I know how fast may be that interval.

I am the first surprised to get a progressive speed of those intervals after tuning octaves, but it is at last in the mediums and treble.

As I said, if I where doing more concert work I'd feel more concerned and probably would try to have more checks, but as long as the tone is congruent, I see no reason the checks would indicate something different.

Of course it cannot be stated that checks are unnecessary, that kind of phrase is misleading (hence the added coments)

The thing is : Is an absolute progression of FBI the model for a perfect tuning, or can other parameters be used (as consonance for instance)

What seem to be necessary in an ET environnment is congruency, probably the brain is able to grasp on any mathemaical model and recognize it as some kind of justness (for instance similar beating on all 5ths and too short octaves can make a "just" sensation.)

If I am in a good mood, I feel that I am using the sympathetic resonance of the rest of the piano immediately after the attack, to ascertain the good positioning of a note.

This effect once one is used to perceive it, is clear enough to provide a "hot spot" (see "mindless octaves" concept)

Add a few confirmations (to test a FBI the necessary time is extremely fast, may be 1/4 to 1/2 second depending of the note) and you are done.

When I was using Verituner VT00 in concert environment, we had one of the most appreciated tuner that was able to make an even progression of 3ds, with the VT showing irregularities .

I could not understand the way he listened, at that times, but he mixed all the partials to obtain the speed of the 3ds, the ETD was definitively "out" of that logic.


Edited by Kamin (12/25/12 05:40 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2004254 - 12/25/12 10:09 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
There has been some suggestion in this thread that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are ideal. I want to reiterate without any reservation, and ask for those who agree to chime in, that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are unacceptable. They do not sound clean, they produce ringing at the 8:4 and higher, and they result in contracted 12ths and triple octaves. When producing a high quality, concert level tuning, the midrange octaves will always be between a 4:2 and a 6:3 upon analysis.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004289 - 12/25/12 12:47 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
I recall Bill Bremmer speaking about tuning mindless octaves. I have learnt a lot from Bill, though I have had some disagreements with him, usually due to my own misunderstanding though. I began following his writings on this forum in 2006. So many thanks to Bill, and I hope he is well too.

With regard to tuning mindless octaves, I developed a slightly different technique to Bill, but it was due to his writings that I stumbled upon it.

I am quite comfortable to tune RBI's and check my SBI's or tune SBI's and check my RBI's when tuning.

For high treble and low bass, this is where it begins to become a bit tricky, but once again, checking and tuning in these areas with the 8ve, D8ve, minor 14th, minor 21st, 10th & 17th, one can make things acceptable. I also do use ghost tuning in the low bass single mono-chord bass strings on the better quality pianos.

Once again, every piano is different. I tune a wide variety of pianos, from old to new, spinet to Kawai 7ft grands.

I just pulled out an old article by Dan Levitan from 1996, and he says the following,

"Just as there is no one right way to set a pin, so too is there no one right procedure to follow in tuning a piano...

Most of us have acquired a wide repertoire of tests, too many to use practically at each tuning.

Decide in advance which tests you want your tuning to pass and stick with them. For example, you might decide that, in the treble, you're only going to check 4ths, 5ths, single octaves, and double octaves. You're asking for trouble if, after you're finished, you decide to listen to your progression of 10ths and 17ths as well."

Oh, please take note that he is also promoting checking ones tuning!







Edited by Mark Davis (12/25/12 02:24 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004295 - 12/25/12 01:03 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Kent Swafford wrote with regards to temperament tuning,

"During any refinement procedure the emphasis should be on checking the tuning of one note at a time. Change the tuning of an interval only when you know for sure which note of the interval is in error. If you find an interval that seems to be beating too fast or to slow, individually check the tuning of both notes that form the interval."

This refinement procedure can obviously be applied to the rest of the piano, but please do note it is a refinement procedure!
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004315 - 12/25/12 02:32 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

I just pulled out an old article by Dan Levitan from 1996....

"Decide in advance which tests you want your tuning to pass and stick with them. For example, you might decide that, in the treble, you're only going to check 4ths, 5ths, single octaves, and double octaves. You're asking for trouble if, after you're finished, you decide to listen to your progression of 10ths and 17ths as well."




I have already promoted the following tests for the octave, tempered 12th, double and triple octave:

M3<M10<M17<M6 and
m6 below = M17

Fitting a M10 and a M17 into such a small window (M3<M6) means that if the lower M3 are all evenly increasing (or whatever they are doing) the upper M10s and M17s will match. This is a much more precise and consistent technique than using 4ths and 5ths, which Dan agrees since he admits one's M10s and M17s will not be evenly increasing.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004321 - 12/25/12 03:05 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, please re-read Dan's statement. I do not think Dan is saying what you are saying he is saying.

BTW, I do not know what Dan holds to today. As I said it is an old article.

Every piano is different and I tune accordingly. I do not hold fast to any particular sequence except checking my work as I progress and smoothing things out as I go, in order for the best possible tuning for that particular piano.

I do like as clean (consonant) a tuning as possible but will adjust if necessary.

I think that I am a whole lot more flexible when it comes to poor quality pianos and poorly scaled pianos, one just has to get through them, but nevertheless one is checking and getting a feeling for the piano and for what is going on and therefore one is in a better position as to what compromises to make and how.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004328 - 12/25/12 03:25 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, on re-reading Dan's statement I think you may have got it right, and I got it wrong.

Is Dan saying in order to obtain progressing 10ths and 17ths up in the treble one should not rely on the 4th, 5th, single and double octave for that particular result?

I actually have misunderstood that statement for some time, but now it has only struck me. I understood it to be saying something else.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004329 - 12/25/12 03:28 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Hi Mark,

I think what Dan is saying is quite clear. He is promoting a technique of being consistent with the approach one takes.

Quote:

"Decide in advance which tests you want your tuning to pass and stick with them.



He is also using the 4ths and 5ths, single and double octaves, as an example of one way to tune the treble.

Quote:

For example, you might decide that, in the treble, you're only going to check 4ths, 5ths, single octaves, and double octaves.


at the same time saying it (the example he uses), is inferior.

Quote:


You're asking for trouble if, after you're finished, you decide to listen to your progression of 10ths and 17ths as well."



I mearly wanted to restate my personally developed technique which uses single octave, double octave, 12ths, and triple octave tests to produce the best compromise of those intervals, while at the same time, producing evenly increasing M10 and M17. You see, the even M10 and M17 are a byproduct of the consistent 1/2/3 octaves and 12ths, not an end-all-and-be-all.

In the end, my posts are only devoted your original subject.

Does anybody else use this "window" technique?

I used it yesterday on a pitch raise of a horrible apartment sized Heintzman with mismatched tenor strings and I was pleased with the result. I recorded some 1/2/3 octaves and 12ths and I will post it eventually.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004332 - 12/25/12 03:38 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark,

I do not use the triple octave test. But I do use the single octave, double octave, M3, M10, M17, M6/M17, P12 and P19 for most of the treble and high treble. Smoothing things out for slightly wide to clean double octaves and or slightly narrow to pure 12ths all depending.

Can you please explain the triple octave test?



Edited by Mark Davis (12/25/12 03:40 PM)
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004338 - 12/25/12 03:50 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Bill Bremmer wrote, "The Octave and 5th comparison with the Double Octave method leads directly to Triple Octaves by and at F6. It is the goal of most of the high level concert techs that I know of."
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004339 - 12/25/12 03:52 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
And Bill also wrote,

"From what I have always understood, the Steinway does have a higher Inharmonicity Profile than a Yamaha. It is my belief that the popular "Equal Temperament with Pure 5ths" style comes mostly from Steinway concert technicians who find out quite naturally that the instrument "wants" to be stretched more than a Baldwin, Yamaha, or Mason & Hamlin. I think what the big mistake may be is to think if that style of tuning is good under those circumstances, then it must be under all.

But Virgil is also no fool. He demonstrated to a group in Chicago once that he could tune ET from a beginning octave that was actually narrow. He also tuned all the octaves much "purer" than he usually does. It created quite a different, "mellower" sound. Some people, some circumstances may require this or any neutral compromise in between. Each choice you make has an effect and just like the intended positive effects of any medicine, there are negative side effects. Drawing a line down the absolute middle will always work, yes but the point is that there are other options."
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004344 - 12/25/12 04:20 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
From readings only, as I did not compare the scaling, Yamaha grand and steinway grand (Hamburg) have asimilar IH.
But, Steinway is providing more partials, that may suffice to allow for a more enlarged tuning, and it also may provide an impression of higher iH.
In the end the iH is just making the pitch less pure, the spectra more "shadowed" , that is not relaly how I would define Steiwnay tone.

What would say that the iH is higher is slower fast beating intervals, possibly Yamaha will be a hair faster but not by much.

Some high tensions scales have low iH and does not accept stretched octaves without sounding harsh . Boesendorfer, Fazioli come to mind.

My theory is not absolutely prooven, as pre WWII French pianos where mounted with soft (and very robust) strings, while they accept large temperament octave (named sometime here "Pleyel temperament" .
Of course we see them with old hardened strings, What I noticed on grand Pleyels when tuned with ETD is that there was a really very low IH in the treble octaves if compared with the mediums to the point some software can be lost.
Try to enlarge the treble octaves then and the tone is out of focus.

When they are tuned as they need they are very pure possibly the wire is really tense a lot and that lower the iH even more



Edited by Kamin (12/25/12 04:20 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2004484 - 12/26/12 06:01 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Anyway, the thread has developed nicely and thanks for your input Isaac. My understanding and experience is limited, though fortunately, it is slowly on the increase. The things which i have asserted and spoken of in my thread i do practice, so I speak from experience, but I do not claim to have arrived or know it all.

I hope and trust that it may be plainly evident that i have made tried and trusted claims, though maybe different from others.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004501 - 12/26/12 07:59 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
There has been some suggestion in this thread that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are ideal. I want to reiterate without any reservation, and ask for those who agree to chime in, that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are unacceptable. They do not sound clean, they produce ringing at the 8:4 and higher, and they result in contracted 12ths and triple octaves. When producing a high quality, concert level tuning, the midrange octaves will always be between a 4:2 and a 6:3 upon analysis.


I continue to disagree but will chime in anyway smile. Stacked 4:2 octaves will ALWAYS produce wide double octaves. The smaller the piano, the wider the double octaves. And they SHOULD be slightly wide. On large grands, between 4:2 and 6:3 is appropriate in the midrange. On studio sized pianos, 4:2 is more appropriate to avoid double octaves that beat too much. And for spinets and most consoles, octaves between 2:1 and 4:2 are best. Interestingly these stretch schemes naturally happen with pure 12ths.

This should be apparent when considering the nature and effects of inharmonicity. When there is no iH, there is no difference between octave types. As iH increases, there is more and more difference. Of course the lower partials should be used when tuning smaller pianos. The lower partials are less affected by iH.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2004531 - 12/26/12 09:43 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Thanks Mark, I recall that a little insecure feeling that most concert technicians have to some degree (they rely mostly on experience to be certain that their tuning is goos)

I suppose that at some point the tuners kjust stop to bother and they consider their work is "as it is" and that will be good.

the "secret " if an eventual secret exists, is to keep coherence between 5th hence twleves and doubles, and octaves, doubles, triples. This gives a sort of scale the tuner can refer to.

I now listen to tunings by geeting the feel for the level of consonance in the 5th and 6th octave zone.

I can find tunings that sound good in mediums and alittle "pinched" in the beginning of treble.
Others that are excellent and grip the ear nicely in all broken chords venues, but sound a bit harsh if they are to be played in close harmony (always in the same "pivot" place between 5 and 6 th octave.

I would agree for more variations in the way the basses are tuned, than for the most balanced way for the diskant/begin of the treble, I'd say those 5th and 6th octaves must rely closely to the harmony in the center of the piano, then the piano have a strong fundation of 4-5 octaves with maximum congruency.

The rest can probably be tuned in diffeent ways depending of the context, in my opinion.

Then if the tuning is enterely based on slightly tempered 12th balanced with 15th, that scheme can be kept all along because of that strong consonant spot it exite.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2004590 - 12/26/12 01:01 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
I dug around for a post by Don Mannino which I had read quiet some time ago and managed to find it. Don was responding to Bill Bremmers thread/post on ET via Marpurg.

I really do appreciate Don's writings and like this one too and thought it may be helpful to those who may be interested,

" Bill,

That is a nice sequence, and I agree that it is often helpful to start with some verifiable pure intervals, then use them as a point of departure to tune the necessarily non-pure intervals in the temperament. I'll try to play with this sequence a little and see how it works for me.

I use the contiguous 3rds to start my temperament, and the only issue that comes up when I teach others about it is that the width of the octaves is somewhat negotiable, and is a part of the tuning process that can confuse setting smooth contiguous 3rds at the start. If one decides in advance to tune precise 4:2 octaves and you verify them it works pretty easily, but I usually tune a little narrower than that, and occasionally a little wider. So this throws another fudge factor into the initial tuning process that might keep me from being able to claim a truly "perfect" equal temperament.

Tuners who try to simply tune a "clean" octave without using a test can then get very confused trying to make the contiguous 3rds work out. The A3-A4 octave might be 4:2, but the F3-F4 might be a little narrow and the contiguous 3rds get goofed up. And of course, small pianos with not so nice string scales kind of make one have to fudge every step of the way....

Finally, it is interesting to look at a different view of tuning like this, but it is a little dangerous sometimes for people to get overly obsessed with perfection in tuning temperaments. No, I don't mean it's OK to be sloppy, but some tuners do spend an awful lot of time working out a beautiful temperament, only to spoil it with inconsistent octaves and unisons.

I think that's what stops a lot of tuners from bothering with trying new temperaments - they are happy with getting something passable in some of the awful pianos they work with every day, and it just doesn't have relevance to their daily lives to worry too much about this level of perfection.

I do agree it's nice to have a really well tuned temperament in a good piano that is also in great condition. Especially if the temperament is carried out well into the treble and bass with good octaves, and the unisons sing evenly."
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004616 - 12/26/12 01:37 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Another excerpt from a post from Bill Bremmer,

"If you tune a 4:2 octave in the temperament and midrange, it will sound very "pure". This may sound ideal but in fact, the best tuners actually tune something a littel wider than that. But going all the way to a 6:3 is a bit too wide. Therefore, the ideal compromise is something in between."

Though Bill's and some other folks promoted optimal octave size, a 4:2+, may be favoured by many, one needs to realise for varying reasons, many professional tuners will tune their own different "optimal temperament octave" and continue from there.

Please also take note that a 4:2 just octave is clean sounding, I would state without hesitancy that it is cleaner sounding than the 4:2+ octave.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004638 - 12/26/12 02:33 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
According to Rick Baldassin, the area between F3 and E5/F5 is an area that the just 4:2, 4:2+ and 4:2- octave may be tuned, so I suppose any of these octaves would be optimal. The just 4:1, 4:1+ and 4:1- double octaves area is between E3 and C8.




Edited by Mark Davis (12/26/12 02:36 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004675 - 12/26/12 04:43 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis


Please also take note that a 4:2 just octave is clean sounding, I would state without hesitancy that it is cleaner sounding than the 4:2+ octave.


This is true, if you can't hear the beating 8:4 partial. This situation occurs the higher up you go, as the 8:4 becomes fainter and approaches the limit of our hearing. Also, older tuners may have some hearing loss and that can make the beating 8:4 hard to hear.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004676 - 12/26/12 04:45 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
According to Rick Baldassin, the area between F3 and E5/F5 is an area that the just 4:2, 4:2+ and 4:2- octave may be tuned, so I suppose any of these octaves would be optimal. The just 4:1, 4:1+ and 4:1- double octaves area is between E3 and C8.



A narrow 4:2? Maybe in the treble. I would be interested in knowing under what circumstances a 4:2- octave is acceptable according to Rick Baldassin. Rick?
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004681 - 12/26/12 05:14 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, did you read what Don Mannino wrote a few posts earlier? I copied and pasted an old post he wrote.

Let me know your thoughts.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004686 - 12/26/12 05:37 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, just thinking and thought you may be of some assistance,

1. Can one tune a just 4:2 octave as the temperament octave and then tune the double octaves pure from say A#4 to C8?

2. Can one tune a 4:2- octave as the temperament octave and then tune pure 12ths from A#4 to F7 and 2:1 octaves from there up to C8?

3. Are you able to tell me the test/check for the 3:1 triple octave please?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004760 - 12/26/12 11:59 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner


I continue to disagree but will chime in anyway smile. Stacked 4:2 octaves will ALWAYS produce wide double octaves. The smaller the piano, the wider the double octaves. And they SHOULD be slightly wide. On large grands, between 4:2 and 6:3 is appropriate in the midrange. On studio sized pianos, 4:2 is more appropriate to avoid double octaves that beat too much. And for spinets and most consoles, octaves between 2:1 and 4:2 are best. Interestingly these stretch schemes naturally happen with pure 12ths.



That is not my experience. Let's see if we can agree on some things and work from there.

First, let's define some things to make discussion simpler.
Let's define an octave that is tuned between a 4:2 and a 6:3 as a 4:2+, meaning slightly wider than a 4:2, but narrower than a 6:3.

Do you agree that a 4:2+ octave produces:

very wide 2:1
wide 4:2
narrow 6:3
very narrow 8:4

where the term "very" is used to indicate only slightly more wide or narrow than just the term wide or narrow.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004763 - 12/27/12 12:26 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Mark,

Sorry I did not reply to your earlier post asking for clarification. I will now.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Mark, just thinking and thought you may be of some assistance,

1. Can one tune a just 4:2 octave as the temperament octave and then tune the double octaves pure from say A#4 to C8?


The first double octave available is F3F5, so A#4 to E5 can't be checked.
The test for the pure 4:1 double octave (at F3F5) is
Db3F3 = Db3F5. (M3=M17)

You can tune with pure 4:1 octaves but you will end up with very narrow 12ths and narrow triple octaves.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

2. Can one tune a 4:2- octave as the temperament octave and then tune pure 12ths from A#4 to F7 and 2:1 octaves from there up to C8?


The temperament can be tuned using any temperament octave size. Then the octaves above can be tuned using any size as well. The question is "what will it sound like?". Pure 3:1 12ths will result in noisy double and triple octaves. 2:1 octaves in the treble sound fine by themselves, but don't produce clean double and triple octaves below.

Pure 12ths are only available to be checked starting with C5. (F3C5) The 4:2- octaves in the F3A4 temperament will sound wonky, with much noise in the treble. Their quality can not be maintained with pure 12ths; keeping 4:2- will produce extremely narrow 12ths.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

3. Are you able to tell me the test/check for the 3:1 triple octave please?


m6 below = M17
Example: Tuning F6
F3Db4 = Db4F6

But the secret is fitting F6 into the P4 "window"

Play these one after another and listen for increasing beat speeds: (Note, the difference in these speeds is extremely small.)

M3<M10<M17<M6

Db4F4 < Db4F5 < Db4F6 < Db4Bb4

then check the triple octave.

Hope that helps.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004766 - 12/27/12 12:41 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Mark,

I found the post you referred to. Here are my comments.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

I use the contiguous 3rds to start my temperament, and the only issue that comes up when I teach others about it is that the width of the octaves is somewhat negotiable, and is a part of the tuning process that can confuse setting smooth contiguous 3rds at the start. If one decides in advance to tune precise 4:2 octaves and you verify them[,] it works pretty easily...


The technique of contiguous 3rds starts with two octaves, A3A4 and F3F4. If they are not the same size, getting smoothly increasing 3rds is impossible.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

...but I usually tune a little narrower than that...


That really baffles me. I will need to look into this more. I cannot bare to tune 4:2- in the temperament. They are not clean what-so-ever. Please somebody respond. What is he talking about?

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

...and occasionally a little wider. So this throws another fudge factor into the initial tuning process that might keep me from being able to claim a truly "perfect" equal temperament.


Still baffled. How does the F3F4 and A3A4 octave size affect the ability to tune the temperament and get evenly increasing M3s, which is by definition, ET? And what is "perfect equal temperament"?

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

Tuners who try to simply tune a "clean" octave without using a test can then get very confused trying to make the contiguous 3rds work out. The A3-A4 octave might be 4:2, but the F3-F4 might be a little narrow and the contiguous 3rds get goofed up.


Right on!

Thanks for the post.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2004774 - 12/27/12 01:58 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Thanks Mark for your posts

I agree with a lot of what you say, but not everything.

I would like to bring to your attention your inconsistency with regard to you saying you tune whole tone as Virgil did, but then you constantly speak about certain partials ringing here and there and everywhere.

Though I agree that there is a system of tuning partials and that partials may and do ring, here and there and everywhere, what I am saying with regards to whole tone tuning is that it is possible to produce a top quality tuning by whole tone tuning alone, without any worrying about partials ringing.

Did not Virgil do it?

The other thing is this, which you are not grasping/accepting and that is this, which I have been saying throughout this thread and say it again and I do think that this was the key to a powerful technique of and for tuning, but nothing fancy, but which Virgil said and practiced,

"Tuning checks are essential for evaluating the accuracy of the tuning, both during the tuning and when it is completed. It is important to know that each note being tuned is correct, because of the other notes being tuned to it.

Much time can be wasted in retuning notes that were incorrectly tuned to notes not correctly tuned. An octave or interval may sound acceptable, but still not be in tune.

Playing an octave or chord is not a reliable tuning check; neither is playing a piece after the tuning is finished. A skilled tuner can eliminate that "out of tune" feeling (sound) and make the tuning sound acceptable in a few minutes, but the piano will not really be in tune.

The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessaery to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks. Checks are used before the note is tuned to determine if the note is sharp or flat and by how much,during the tuning, and after it is tuned to check the accuracy of the tuning."

Thanks,
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004781 - 12/27/12 02:58 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Hi Mark,

Sorry I did not reply to your earlier post asking for clarification. I will now.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Mark, just thinking and thought you may be of some assistance,

1. Can one tune a just 4:2 octave as the temperament octave and then tune the double octaves pure from say A#4 to C8?


The first double octave available is F3F5, so A#4 to E5 can't be checked.
The test for the pure 4:1 double octave (at F3F5) is
Db3F3 = Db3F5. (M3=M17)

You can tune with pure 4:1 octaves but you will end up with very narrow 12ths and narrow triple octaves.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

2. Can one tune a 4:2- octave as the temperament octave and then tune pure 12ths from A#4 to F7 and 2:1 octaves from there up to C8?


The temperament can be tuned using any temperament octave size. Then the octaves above can be tuned using any size as well. The question is "what will it sound like?". Pure 3:1 12ths will result in noisy double and triple octaves. 2:1 octaves in the treble sound fine by themselves, but don't produce clean double and triple octaves below.

Pure 12ths are only available to be checked starting with C5. (F3C5) The 4:2- octaves in the F3A4 temperament will sound wonky, with much noise in the treble. Their quality can not be maintained with pure 12ths; keeping 4:2- will produce extremely narrow 12ths.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

3. Are you able to tell me the test/check for the 3:1 triple octave please?


m6 below = M17
Example: Tuning F6
F3Db4 = Db4F6

But the secret is fitting F6 into the P4 "window"

Play these one after another and listen for increasing beat speeds: (Note, the difference in these speeds is extremely small.)

M3<M10<M17<M6

Db4F4 < Db4F5 < Db4F6 < Db4Bb4

then check the triple octave.

Hope that helps.


Yes, it does help and I agree.

Though I may not agree with you on certain things you have said, here I agree and accept.

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
But the secret is fitting F6 into the P4 "window"


Mark, please will you explain what you mean here.

Thank you.


Edited by Mark Davis (12/27/12 03:34 AM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2004820 - 12/27/12 07:19 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner


I continue to disagree but will chime in anyway smile. Stacked 4:2 octaves will ALWAYS produce wide double octaves. The smaller the piano, the wider the double octaves. And they SHOULD be slightly wide. On large grands, between 4:2 and 6:3 is appropriate in the midrange. On studio sized pianos, 4:2 is more appropriate to avoid double octaves that beat too much. And for spinets and most consoles, octaves between 2:1 and 4:2 are best. Interestingly these stretch schemes naturally happen with pure 12ths.



That is not my experience. Let's see if we can agree on some things and work from there.

First, let's define some things to make discussion simpler.
Let's define an octave that is tuned between a 4:2 and a 6:3 as a 4:2+, meaning slightly wider than a 4:2, but narrower than a 6:3.

Do you agree that a 4:2+ octave produces:

very wide 2:1
wide 4:2
narrow 6:3
very narrow 8:4

where the term "very" is used to indicate only slightly more wide or narrow than just the term wide or narrow.



Sure, we can agree that a wide 4:2 produces a wider 2:1 (measured in cents) and a narrow 6:3 produces a narrower 8:4 (again, measured in cents). Whether the term VERY wide or VERY narrow is appropriate is really up to interpretation. On a concert grand there is much less difference between octave types than on a spinet.

If we can agree that the difference in octave types is dependent on iH (the size of the piano) then we can continue our discussion to include the effect of the octave type and iH on the double octave.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2004824 - 12/27/12 07:33 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Hi Mark,

I found the post you referred to. Here are my comments.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

I use the contiguous 3rds to start my temperament, and the only issue that comes up when I teach others about it is that the width of the octaves is somewhat negotiable, and is a part of the tuning process that can confuse setting smooth contiguous 3rds at the start. If one decides in advance to tune precise 4:2 octaves and you verify them[,] it works pretty easily...


The technique of contiguous 3rds starts with two octaves, A3A4 and F3F4. If they are not the same size, getting smoothly increasing 3rds is impossible.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

...but I usually tune a little narrower than that...


That really baffles me. I will need to look into this more. I cannot bare to tune 4:2- in the temperament. They are not clean what-so-ever. Please somebody respond. What is he talking about?

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

...and occasionally a little wider. So this throws another fudge factor into the initial tuning process that might keep me from being able to claim a truly "perfect" equal temperament.


Still baffled. How does the F3F4 and A3A4 octave size affect the ability to tune the temperament and get evenly increasing M3s, which is by definition, ET? And what is "perfect equal temperament"?

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Don Mannino

Tuners who try to simply tune a "clean" octave without using a test can then get very confused trying to make the contiguous 3rds work out. The A3-A4 octave might be 4:2, but the F3-F4 might be a little narrow and the contiguous 3rds get goofed up.


Right on!

Thanks for the post.


Mark:

I see no problem with ET being possible with any width octave (or any width of any other interval for that matter) even if the octave changes width, as long as it changes progressively. However, I do see a problem of defining ET as progressive M3s. (You can take a clinical ET and raise F, A and C# 50 cents or more and still have progressive M3s.) A better RBI definition would be progressive M3s and M6s.

And I too, along with Mr. Mannino, tune narrow 4:2 octaves in the mid range. I don't know if we do it for the same reason, however. I do it on small pianos. It keeps the double octaves from beating too fast.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2004830 - 12/27/12 08:05 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I have seen many Japanese tuners using a just slightly opened 2:1 octave in mid range. (M10 M17th test)

It is interesting to add 2:1 comparison in regard of the 4:2 6:3 tests. Then you will really finish asking you questions as the 2:1 does not follow a similar logic, it should be enlarged a lot with that 4:2 6:3 octave, it is not wink
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2004855 - 12/27/12 09:23 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Kamin
I have seen many Japanese tuners using a just slightly opened 2:1 octave in mid range. (M10 M17th test)

It is interesting to add 2:1 comparison in regard of the 4:2 6:3 tests. Then you will really finish asking you questions as the 2:1 does not follow a similar logic, it should be enlarged a lot with that 4:2 6:3 octave, it is not wink


Yes, as I have mentioned before, since the 2:1 partial match is an octave below the 4:2 partial match it will beat at the same speed as the 4:2 when it is twice as wide in cents. This happens when the beat of the narrow 6:3 equals the wide 4:2 and the wider (in cents) 2:1. There is a place where the 2:1, the 4:2 and the 6:3 all beat at the same rate. Whether this is an ideal place for any particular octave is another story.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2006495 - 12/30/12 11:14 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Mark,

Thanks for your comments. I tried to read your post to find out where you disagree with me, but I couldn't find anything. Maybe you could clarify.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I would like to bring to your attention your inconsistency with regard to you saying you tune whole tone as Virgil did,


Well, I don't think I ever said I tune as Virgil did. I never got to take a class with him, although I really wanted to, but he passed away before I could get a chance.

I think the confusion lies with my expanded discussion of tuning checks, maybe? I don't know.

Maybe this will help. When I talk of tuning checks, I am speaking as an after-the-fact analysis. I.e. the checks I expound upon are those that have resulted from tuning great sounding 1/2/3 octaves, 12ths, etc, by ear, i.e. confirming that the whole piano sounds in tune, has a tone that is not only pleasing, but at times, scary in-tune. I.e. the intervals sound good because they sound good when listening to the "whole tone", the "complete tone", with open ears. Now, to get that sound, I use the checks, trying to recreate the condition that existed in these checks "after" a high level of quality has been achieved and analysed on previous pianos.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
...but then you constantly speak about certain partials ringing here and there and everywhere.


Yes, I speak of partials ringing when octaves are tuned wrong, i.e. 4:2 and 4:2- in the mid range. Others are claiming that these sizes are acceptable, but I have never found a piano where that is the case. The partials that I say beat when tuning a 4:2+ are cancelled out by their "sister partials", for lack of a better term. I.e. for a 4:2+, those would be 2:1 & 8:4, and 4:2 & 6:3.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Though I agree that there is a system of tuning partials and that partials may and do ring, here and there and everywhere, what I am saying with regards to whole tone tuning is that it is possible to produce a top quality tuning by whole tone tuning alone, without any worrying about partials ringing.


But, don't you quote Virgil below as saying:
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Virgil Smith
Tuning checks are essential for evaluating the accuracy of the tuning,


Also, I really like this quote...
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Virgil Smith
Much time can be wasted in retuning notes that were incorrectly tuned to notes not correctly tuned.

because it is the reason I use my "window" technique, which is in effect using "tuning checks [that] are essential for evaluating the accuracy of the tuning." - Virgil Smith
The window technique is
M3<M10<M17<M6
and
m6 below = M17

I am amazed at the times I can find notes within the window that do not fit (not the top, but the others) and have to be retuned. They have drifted or were not set right to begin with. This technique allows me to catch all those imperfections as I go.

Okay, so reading on in your post, I find two completely opposite points of view, but both were said by you. Could you please clarify because I'm sure I am missing something important in your critique.

You say:
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
it is possible to produce a top quality tuning by whole tone tuning alone [I assume that means no checks], without any worrying about partials ringing. [which I assume means using checks]

and yet quote Virgil as saying, to back up your position:
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Virgil Smith
The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessary to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks.

I look forward to your post. Thanks.


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (12/30/12 11:16 AM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2006514 - 12/30/12 12:07 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis


Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
But the secret is fitting F6 into the P4 "window"


Mark, please will you explain what you mean here.

Thank you.


Yes, for preciseness, I will explain the P4 window.

Well, I think we all agree that the check for a P4 is M3 < M6.

Or to be more "Virgilian", when the P4 sounds the best, i.e. is at the size that makes it sound ok while at the same time, producing pleasing "whole" or "full" or "complete" intervals with each and every interval it makes now, or will ever make in the future with any note on the piano, then we find that the M3 < M6.

Now, starting at F3, this test is used at Bb3. (Sorry, I'm a musician and will never get used to seeing F3A#3)
M3 < M6
Db3F3 < Db3Bb3

Okay, now at F4, this window comes into play by tuning F4 so that:
M3 < M10 < M6
Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3Bb3

Notice here that
Db3F4 < Db3Bb3 (M10 < M6)
is the test for a P5


In fact, this is a proof that the 4:2 doesn't work because if
M3=M10 (test for a pure 4:2)

then the window looks like this:

M3 = M10 < M6

and by the transitive property

M3 < M6 and M10 < M6 by the same amount

and therefore the fourth and fifth beat at the same speed.

But Reblitz and other texts claim that the fifths beat slower than the fourths in ET! Both can't be true.


Okay, so now the next note to fit into the window is F5, like this:

M3 < M10 < M17 < M6

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

The wide fourth relationship is preserved here:

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

The narrow fifth preserved here:

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

The 2:1+ octave here:

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

The 4:2+ octave here:

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

and the tempered 12th here:

Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3F5 < Db3Bb3

Each and every note is checked and re-checked as you progress through the treble and if any drift, you can catch it right away. Very powerful.

The final test is

m6 below = M17 (the test for a pure triple octave)

F3Db4 = Db4F6

So the progression of tests is (starting at F6)

M3 < M10 < M17 < M6 and (m6 below = M17)

Db4F4 < Db4F5 < Db4F6 < Db4Bb4 and F3Db4 = F6

Notice Db4 in all the tests. This makes it very easy to remember. Actually I just noticed that Db4 doesn't need to be in tune, which makes this an even more powerful test because all the other relationships will be preserved only if they relate to each other in the described way.

I know this seems all too mathematical, but you don't have to think about it. I just go through the test quickly and automatically. It is really easy and you don't have to think about it at all. Mindless as Bill Bremmer says.

Hope this is clear. I would be very excited to hear that you tried it out and were pleased.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2006613 - 12/30/12 03:44 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Herr Weiss Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/26/12
Posts: 117
Loc: New York, N.Y.
Monsieur Cerisano: Thank you for explaining so well for all of us. I have the utmost respect for GOOD teachers and yes,schools. Socrates, Plato, Confucius,etc.. The same with Books,PDF files,sheepskins,etc. The knowledge can be transferred verbally,written,in a demonstration in person and so on... NOTHING beats a private one-on-one class with a GOOD teacher. An experience like that is inestimable; but the monetary exchange is not my argument. It is money well spent. IMHO In this field of "Piano care", having a GOOD teacher or a school is heaven-sent. The 'manipulation of the tuning hammer', just to take one aspect, is of course better learned by EXAMPLE. But it is also an ART. One must learn to hear/listen/feel. I went to ART school and learned how to SEE. Same thing. Some people never learn. Some do. Bonne Chance avec votre ecole!! Herr Weiss


Edited by Herr Weiss (12/30/12 03:59 PM)
Edit Reason: spelling

Top
#2007829 - 01/02/13 07:35 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
.....

Now, starting at F3, this test is used at Bb3. (Sorry, I'm a musician and will never get used to seeing F3A#3)
M3 < M6
Db3F3 < Db3Bb3

Okay, now at F4, this window comes into play by tuning F4 so that:
M3 < M10 < M6
Db3F3 < Db3F4 < Db3Bb3

Notice here that
Db3F4 < Db3Bb3 (M10 < M6)
is the test for a P5


In fact, this is a proof that the 4:2 doesn't work because if
M3=M10 (test for a pure 4:2)

then the window looks like this:

M3 = M10 < M6

and by the transitive property

M3 < M6 and M10 < M6 by the same amount

and therefore the fourth and fifth beat at the same speed.

But Reblitz and other texts claim that the fifths beat slower than the fourths in ET! Both can't be true.


.....


For Pete's sake! The texts are talking about when the 4ths and 5ths have a common lower note (and usually non-iH, 2:1 octave, theoretical pitches), not the P4-P5 test for a 4:2 octave where the upper note of the fourth is common with the lower note of the fifth!

Your "P4 window" is nothing new. Another way to look at it is that the algebraic sum difference of beating of the 12th (3:1) and the 15th (4:1) equals the beating of the inferred P4 (4:3) when the 12th and 15th have a common upper note. By placing the upper note in a position where the M6-M17 tests the 12th to be narrow and the M3-M17 tests the 15th to be wide, you are using a stretch scheme that Mr. Bremmer calls "Mindless Octaves" and Mr. Capurso calls "CHAS."

And from a separate post:
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
.....

I am amazed at the times I can find notes within the window that do not fit (not the top, but the others) and have to be retuned. They have drifted or were not set right to begin with. This technique allows me to catch all those imperfections as I go.

.....


Yes, sometimes lower notes have not been set right for a stretch scheme that uses 12ths and/or 15ths. I have mentioned before that depending on the size of the piano, you need different sized octaves in the middle for a specific size of 12ths and/or 15ths. If you want to get the octaves right to begin with, why not start with a specific size 12th and/or 15th and then construct your temperment, including the mid-range octaves, from there?


Edited by UnrightTooner (01/02/13 09:39 AM)
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2007873 - 01/02/13 09:34 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
For Pete's sake! The texts are talking about when the 4ths and 5ths have a common lower note.


I have been tuning for 13 years, teaching tuning for 7 and am a mechanical engineer. I think I know what I'm talking about. It appears your constant opposition to my teachings show your lack of openness. How can you go against the largest and most respected piano technology association in the world (PTG) when they state the proper size of the octave in the midrange is 4:2+.

Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, Reblitz lists the highest P5 in the temperament octave as beating faster than the lowest P4, so your critique is way off.

For Pete's sake, the P4 beats (approx.) 1bps while the P5 beats once in 4 seconds, that's 0.25 bps. That's a huge difference, mathematically and aurally. Sorry, your critique doesn't pass the mustard.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2007881 - 01/02/13 09:55 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_tuning#Temperament_and_beating

Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2007914 - 01/02/13 11:39 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Hi ! that is an interesting suite of checks possibly it fall in place within the CHAS pattern .

I tend to believe that when we compare so many intervals that may have so little difference of beat speed between them, our ear tend to push our evaluation in the direction of "OK" .

Unless you have that progression in your ears as a consonance check (that is possible) I dont believe we can precisely compare as many intervals.

Indeed progression between contiguous intervals is often very slow, but it provide yet a fine control.

All those checks between different styles of intervals I find really tiring for the ears/brain.

Particularly, I find that once on the way during the tuning the tests fall in place when used, so at some point they are almost unnecessary...
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2007916 - 01/02/13 11:43 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_tuning#Temperament_and_beating

Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


Why do you want that an actual real tuning complies with theoretical beat rates ?
I believe this may be the case when "pure x" system is used (while I dont see the real reason why, in the end) , but I say we want consonance, and the beats may fall where they can depending of the piano (within limits of course)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2007927 - 01/02/13 11:53 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
For Pete's sake! The texts are talking about when the 4ths and 5ths have a common lower note.


I have been tuning for 13 years, teaching tuning for 7 and am a mechanical engineer. I think I know what I'm talking about. It appears your constant opposition to my teachings show your lack of openness. How can you go against the largest and most respected piano technology association in the world (PTG) when they state the proper size of the octave in the midrange is 4:2+.

Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, Reblitz lists the highest P5 in the temperament octave as beating faster than the lowest P4, so your critique is way off.

For Pete's sake, the P4 beats (approx.) 1bps while the P5 beats once in 4 seconds, that's 0.25 bps. That's a huge difference, mathematically and aurally. Sorry, your critique doesn't pass the mustard.


Mark, sorry to say that but A. Reblitz was not a tuner, and at that time the theory was yet obscure.

We need progressiveness or eveness of beats and there are different possible arrangements for that, all fall in the category "ET" while providing very different justness style particularly when compared with an orchestra.

I like the logical part of you check list , any "rule" that allow to check consistency of tuning is good to take.
I am unsure it agree with my actual tuning or listening (probably because my temperament is tweaked in a particular way, so inner relations are not based on a pure theoretical division of a pure octave, but I believe that any method that allow the partials to flow well together on a larger span is good at large for the global enlighting of the tuning, if the piano like that ;
for instance to play classical Jazz on a Yamaha U1, a very close tuning is allowing more roundness and a thicker tone (because the piano sound less "just" in that case, more sour, but warmer in close harmony ), than following the partials to the edge , that can be good to play Ravel or last century classical music...)

All the best for 2013 and thank you for providing your thinking and findings


Edited by Kamin (01/02/13 11:56 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2007945 - 01/02/13 12:20 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Kamin
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_tuning#Temperament_and_beating

Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


Why do you want that an actual real tuning complies with theoretical beat rates ?
I believe this may be the case when "pure x" system is used (while I dont see the real reason why, in the end) , but I say we want consonance, and the beats may fall where they can depending of the piano (within limits of course)


Why do you want that an actual real tuning complies with theoretical beat rates ?

I did not say I did. I know that they do not. But we must crawl before we walk...
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2007955 - 01/02/13 12:40 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:



Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


I care about what helps people learn to tune pianos as easily as possible with the best result.

I will take the time to look into your argument with the chart, but on initial inspection, it appears you've confused the intervals; C - G is not a fourth.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2007960 - 01/02/13 12:54 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:



Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


I care about what helps people learn to tune pianos as easily as possible with the best result.

I will take the time to look into your argument with the chart, but on initial inspection, it appears you've confused the intervals; C - G is not a fourth.


Thanks for catching my typo. I meant C-F fourth and F-C fifth.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2007995 - 01/02/13 01:53 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
rysowers Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 2401
Loc: Olympia, WA
Originally Posted By: Mark

I have been tuning for 13 years, teaching tuning for 7 and am a mechanical engineer. I think I know what I'm talking about. It appears your constant opposition to my teachings show your lack of openness. How can you go against the largest and most respected piano technology association in the world (PTG) when they state the proper size of the octave in the midrange is 4:2+.

Mark, 13 years is a modest amount of experience in this field. I've been at it for 20 and am discovering new things about tuning every year. That's part of the fun of this business. I suspect in 5 years you may look back at your old thinking at realize that you didn't have it all figured out. At least that's what should happen to an open minded student of the craft.

I'm not sure what mechanical engineering has to do with teaching tuning. Maybe you can clarify that statement.

I would be careful using the PTG as an authority on tuning. The standard that the PTG promotes and tests for is a minimal standard. A tuner has to work within a 1 cent tolerance relative to the "Master Tuning" in the middle two octaves in both temperament and unisons to get a perfect score. The tolerances increase until they are at 6 cents for the lowest and highest octaves. In fact, in one case I observed an examinee get a very poor score on the temperament, (under 60 percent) yet passed the high treble with very high scores (over 90 percent). He was good at tuning octaves! As he progressed up the scale the tolerances became wide enough to give him better scores.

In PTG literature you will find differing opinions among experts. I do not believe that PTG as an organization has an "official" stand on what the right octave size is.


Edited by rysowers (01/02/13 01:55 PM)
_________________________
Ryan Sowers,
Pianova Piano Service
Olympia, WA
www.pianova.net

Top
#2008081 - 01/02/13 04:36 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Ryan,

Your points are well taken. My qualifications should not need to be restated; my arguments should stand on their own.

While I appreciate your input, I wish it were more to the point of the specific question, "How to get clean beatless octaves" rather than a critique of my qualifications.

As for my level of experience, I concur. However, I have always tuned 4:2+ octaves since day one and have never be shown or convinced that what I am doing could or should be done differently in different circumstances. Perhaps I am here to be challenged and convinced. If I can't be convinced, I would hope that others could learn from my perspective.

As for the PTG, the standard, as far as I know, is as I stated; 4:2+ in the midrange as the starting point for the master tuning. This is according to various CTE's I have spoken with. I agree that the tolerances are loose for the examinee, but they shouldn't be for the master tuning, no?

It is really nice to have a new voice in the conversation. Thanks for your post.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2008087 - 01/02/13 04:49 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_tuning#Temperament_and_beating

Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


I looked at the chart. It appears that there is no stretch in that octave; it is a 2:1 from C - C. According to my tunings, when all the extended intervals are harmonious, the upper fifth (F - C) is beating slower than the lower fourth (C - F). I assume the majority of the stretch is taken up by the fourths.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2008287 - 01/03/13 12:00 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

So your argument is about who is right rather than what is right.

Here is a link to a chart with theoretical beat rates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_tuning#Temperament_and_beating

Notice how the beatrate for the C-G fourth is exactly the same as the G-C fifth at 1.18243?


I looked at the chart. It appears that there is no stretch in that octave; it is a 2:1 from C - C. According to my tunings, when all the extended intervals are harmonious, the upper fifth (F - C) is beating slower than the lower fourth (C - F). I assume the majority of the stretch is taken up by the fourths.

When you stretch the octave, the 4ths will start beating faster and the fifths will start beating slower (up to the Cordier limit). Is that what you meant?

If at all possible, I'd love to hear you record a 4:2 octave, a 6:3 octave, and then the 4:2+ octave which you tune "perfect".

I think this will be more convincing than theoretical arguments.

Kees

Top
#2008378 - 01/03/13 06:26 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
David Boyce Offline
Full Member

Registered: 05/14/07
Posts: 272
Loc: Scotland
Well, I still think my definition of tuning holds good: "It's part arithmetic and part flower-arranging".

Top
#2008389 - 01/03/13 07:32 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Mark:

Hmmm, you may be missing my point. I did not have a downloadable copy of Reblitz’s beatrate table, which you said showed the highest fifth in the temperment octave beating much slower than the lowest fourth. So, I posted what was available. I have studied my copy of Reblitz, though not lately, and am sure that it will agree with any other theoretical beat table.

You mention that CTEs recommend tuning a 4:2+ octave in the midrange for a master tuning. This will always be on a good sized grand piano. The PTG exam procedure requires it to be. Somehow this is assumed to produce wide 4:1 15ths and narrow 3:1 12ths, and so this stretch scheme would then be appropriate for expanding the temperment. I believe that it will usually produce virtually pure 12ths, and that is the appropriate stretch scheme for expanding the temperment on good sized grands with 4:2+ octaves in the midrange.

Some contributors to this Forum agree with me, others do not. It is not a new subject. You and I, Mark, can simply agree to disagree on this and perhaps still discuss broader issues.

There are two things on my mind. First, (as I have stated before) depending on the size of the piano, a given octave type in the mid-range corresponds to a certain relationship between the 12ths and the 15ths. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this also. I do not believe in a one size fits all mid-range octave.

Second is what to do about the relationship between the mid-range octave and the 12th/15th relationship. Is it better to make a hard choice on the octave, expand it until the type of 12ths and 15ths become apparent and then continue with this happenstance stretch scheme? Or is it better to start with a 12th/15th scheme and find the octave that works for it? Or we could work back and forth between them, which would be time consuming. Or the mid-range could be firmly decided ahead of time and if the 12ths/15ths don’t turn out as expected start moving things around to make any errors less obvious. I understand that mindless octaves are used to expand UTs in this way.

What are your or anyone else's thoughts on this?
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2008443 - 01/03/13 09:41 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I feel the fundation of my central octaves is based on a 2:1 and 4/2 relation, then the 6/3 is added ant I feel it as parasitic to the cleanless of my fundation, so I am not allowing the 12th to sound too much present, most often.

If you manipulate the tuning lever slow enough, you can hear the partials flowing and coupling together as a rainbow, with sort of flute/piccolo effect.

The same process can be used within unisons
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2008453 - 01/03/13 10:04 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Kamin:

I assume you are talking about concert grands. Do you mean to say that your central octaves are between 4:2 and 6:3? And do you mean by "not allowing the 12th to sound too much present" that your 12ths are virtually pure?

I believe these two things go together with large grands. Is that what you believe, also?
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2008511 - 01/03/13 12:27 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
rysowers Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 2401
Loc: Olympia, WA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT


As for the PTG, the standard, as far as I know, is as I stated; 4:2+ in the midrange as the starting point for the master tuning. This is according to various CTE's I have spoken with. I agree that the tolerances are loose for the examinee, but they shouldn't be for the master tuning, no?


Here is some real-world data based off of two master tunings that have been used at our exam center in Tacoma Wa. The piano is a Steinway B.

In a master tuning, the notes A3 and A4 are recorded at A5. The difference in cents will refer to the size of the 4:2 octave.

Example 1: A3 = +1.8 cents. A4= =1.1 cents. difference = -.7 cents. In this master tuning the A3/A4 octave is a 4:2 octave narrow by .7 cents.

Example 2: A3 = +0.7 cents. A4 = +1.0 cents. difference = +.3 cents. In this master tuning the A3/A4 octave is a 4:2 octave wide by .3 cents.

In my opinion .3 cents is at the threshold of being a non-difference in practical terms. Often, pure sounding unisons may still measure up to .3 cents off. Just moving an ETD from one location to another can easily result in a .3 cents difference. So, a 4:2 Octave that is .3 cents wide is virtually pure.

Keep in mind that both tunings were performed by concert level technicians who spent over 3 hours nit picking the tuning before making the measurements.

Granted, 2 examples are not a large enough sample to extrapolate to the rest of the PTG. It would be interesting to average the master tuning data collected from around the country and get an average of the A3-A4 octave size. Then your claim about 4:2+ might hold up.
_________________________
Ryan Sowers,
Pianova Piano Service
Olympia, WA
www.pianova.net

Top
#2008537 - 01/03/13 01:33 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Ryan:

By any chance were D3 and A5 also recorded at A5? Then we could know about how the 12th and 15th turned out.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2008565 - 01/03/13 02:19 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
rysowers Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 2401
Loc: Olympia, WA
Jeff,

Yes they are. D3 shows -1.5 cents read at octave 5(D5). A5 shows +3.2
The other example shows D3 at -1.2 and A5 at +3.4.

I'd be curious to know how you would interpret this information.
_________________________
Ryan Sowers,
Pianova Piano Service
Olympia, WA
www.pianova.net

Top
#2008621 - 01/03/13 03:58 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Kamin:

I assume you are talking about concert grands. Do you mean to say that your central octaves are between 4:2 and 6:3? And do you mean by "not allowing the 12th to sound too much present" that your 12ths are virtually pure?

I believe these two things go together with large grands. Is that what you believe, also?


Hello, No I am unsure I talk of concert grands, also this will depend of the brand hence scaling.

I just wanted to say I focus on the consonance at the upper note level, and the 3d partial is there in "extra" it can be allowed to sing more or less, but generally less.

But I agree on vertical pianos and on pianos with large iH the 6d and 3th partials are more present in the medium octaves.

I wonder how much the other partials influence our perception of beat acceleration when comparing 3d and tenth, and 17th etc.

I dont believe I aim for a pure twelve as a final result, the max consonant spot being at a slightly broke 12th (then the consonance begin to be clean/>cold then acid)

Of course unisons, can always "temper" a tuning, I belive that when tuining unisons I probably modify the final pitch perceived, pushing the envelope in the direction I feel it sound better with the bottom note(s).

For my central octaves I refer much to the slow beating intervals to confirm my octave, then the fast beating have to be in an accepeteable range of "known" speeds, and progressive.

Not being too much nit picky in the temperament zone allow to stay quiet, corrections can be added later.
I hate for instance spending time to get perfect notes one after the other, to discover in the end that the bridge have moved a little and all my notes are constrained within the octave (what may happen if more than a few cts are to be added or if the precendent tuning was done in the opposite season.

Before I used ETD I was always aiming for a final pitch different of the one I tuned initially, now I try to have that pitch fall in place by itself, which is effective up to some point.




Edited by Kamin (01/03/13 04:07 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2008627 - 01/03/13 04:20 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I am happy to see that the partial match rules are not applied as intensively they may seem originally.

Without doubting of the effectiveness of the different checks relating to partial matches, I feel that way of tuning may push the ear to focus too much on one partial relation, then possibly the ear discriminates too much.

That is funny as experienced tuners tend to agree that they mostly focus on having a quiet ear, and follow their instinct, using checks in case of doubt essentially.

I have tuned in front of tuners and musicians, that where surprised that with so little checks and tuning mostly octaves, the consistency of FBI was attained. (when tuning fast, a doubt is cleared by playing a tenth or a 17 th without any comparison with other intervals, eventually a contiguous one)

Possibly in the octave I perceive how the rest of the piano is exited by my octave, this sensation occur only when the mediums of the piano begin to be in tune, but I seem to rely on it (similar as when tuning high treble if you see what I mean)

I chase for that sensation until I perceive it, as I said generally when 2 octaves and a half are tuned , unison wise, then I may apply some corrections to my central string eventually.

The basses are a different story, but with low medium and top basses well in line, the rest fall in place often naturally (strange BTW to notice that M3 conbtinue to be progressive, down and down, on indeed a good enough piano just sticking to a resonant spot and checking/avoiding too fast 6th.

The unison bring a "material" (tone) but it is based and enhanced bu the level of consonance of the tuning at large.

The tuning with ETD (mostly good pianos) for some years learned me to follow a very slow progression, stick to a tone, I have find myself with the ETD in loss of batteries and producing the same tuning than with it, so a tuning/ a tone is something a tuner learn in his ears and brain, most probably.


Edited by Kamin (01/03/13 04:22 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2008631 - 01/03/13 04:26 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: rysowers]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: rysowers


Here is some real-world data based off of two master tunings that have been used at our exam center in Tacoma Wa. The piano is a Steinway B.

In a master tuning, the notes A3 and A4 are recorded at A5. The difference in cents will refer to the size of the 4:2 octave.

Example 1: A3 = +1.8 cents. A4= =1.1 cents. difference = -.7 cents. In this master tuning the A3/A4 octave is a 4:2 octave narrow by .7 cents.

Example 2: A3 = +0.7 cents. A4 = +1.0 cents. difference = +.3 cents. In this master tuning the A3/A4 octave is a 4:2 octave wide by .3 cents.

In my opinion .3 cents is at the threshold of being a non-difference in practical terms. Often, pure sounding unisons may still measure up to .3 cents off. Just moving an ETD from one location to another can easily result in a .3 cents difference. So, a 4:2 Octave that is .3 cents wide is virtually pure.

Keep in mind that both tunings were performed by concert level technicians who spent over 3 hours nit picking the tuning before making the measurements.

Granted, 2 examples are not a large enough sample to extrapolate to the rest of the PTG. It would be interesting to average the master tuning data collected from around the country and get an average of the A3-A4 octave size. Then your claim about 4:2+ might hold up.



Some B211 can be tuned with really 2:1 type octaves in the mediums, the ones with a warm tone there ask for such treatment (and there are often very slow M3 near the break.

A more clear sounding B will accept more enlarged octaves so to hide the beat at the higher partials level.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2008879 - 01/04/13 08:14 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: rysowers
Jeff,

Yes they are. D3 shows -1.5 cents read at octave 5(D5). A5 shows +3.2
The other example shows D3 at -1.2 and A5 at +3.4.

I'd be curious to know how you would interpret this information.



Sure! I'll do what I can. I was really hoping for a reading on the third partial of D3, though. That, along with the first partial of A5 A4 would indicate whether the D3-A5 D3-A4 12th was wide or narrow or pure.

Example A:

A3-A4 4:2 octave is narrow at ½ bps.
A4-A5 2:1 octave is wide at 1 bps
A3-A5 4:1 double octave is wide at 1 bps

Example B:

A3-A4 4:2 octave is virtually pure
A4-A5 2:1 octave is wide at 1 bps
A3-A5 4:1 double octave is wide at 1&1/2 bps

As far as D3, being read at D5, at first glance it seems that it would be a tuning error. Extrapolating the cent values of A3, A4 and A5 (measured at A5) you would expect the cent values of D3 (measured at D5) to be at least zero, if not positive. But since this anomaly is present in both tunings, and they are both “master tunings” then scaling comes into question.

I do not have an iH curve in my database application for an S&S B, but there is a graphic one on the pscale site:



D3 is note #30. On the graphic it is just to the right of the “knee” of the iH curve. But of course the S&S B that the cent readings were taken from might be scaled differently. And also, depending on what priorities were used in tuning across the break, another tuner might place D3 differently.

Not to get off the subject, but it makes me wonder about the master tuning and the PTG exam. The master tuning might make adjustments to D3 when listening across the break, below C3, while this note would be judged before anything below C3 was tuned and no such adjustment would be made. Hmmm…


Edited by UnrightTooner (01/04/13 02:21 PM)
Edit Reason: Blunder
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2008936 - 01/04/13 11:30 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
RonTuner Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1617
Loc: Chicagoland
Jeff, here's something that may either clear or muddy up the waters...

These are tuning targets generated by the Verituner for 3 Steinway Bs. Of interest is not the placement of the targets, rather the relationships between the partials of each note, where you should be able to determine the range of inharmonicity for each measured string. Since this is software based measuring, there is a trade off between speed of measuring and accuracy. This makes it hard to determine if the differences between similar pianos is due to measurement variations, or actual differences between pianos...

Anyway, I thought it might be of some value to you. Verituner doesn't generate a value for the fundamental, or 1st partial of D3 - so partials 2-6 are notated. The three pianos - older one I couldn't find a serial number, then 431230 and 431570. All used the same calculation parameters for octave width(s). This would be easier in spreadsheet form, but here goes!

Piano 1
D3 none, -3.27, -2.46, -1.24, -.55, .38
A3 -2.88, -2.22, -1.3, .59, 2.08, 4.48
A4 0.00, 1.30, 5.13, 9.76
E5 1.06, 4.13, 9.6, 17.13
A5 3.32, 8.26, 16.67, 27.77

431230
D3 none, -3.55, -3.14, -2.14, -1.41, -.38
A3 -2.56, -1.33, -1.02, -.12, 1.81, 3.72
A4 0.00, .87, 4.41, 10.0
E5 .57, 3.03, 8.75, 16.63
A5 4.43, 6.86, 17.74, 29.74

431570
D3 none, -3.07, -1.66, -.75, .01, 1.19
A3 -2.29, -2.33, -.28, -.96, 2.21, 4.85
A4 0.00, 1.42, 4.97, 9.83
E5 .64, 2.96, 8.71, 16.13
A5 3.7, 8.04, 17.03, 29.33

Ron Koval


Edited by RonTuner (01/04/13 11:31 AM)
_________________________
Piano/instrument technician
www.ronkoval.com
@ronkoval

my piano videos:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=drwoodwind


Top
#2008973 - 01/04/13 02:12 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
RonTuner Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1617
Loc: Chicagoland
That's just my default custom stretch for Steinways - It's all user-variable, so I could customize one to fit Ryan's example too... These were saved files from a few years ago. As I've thought more about ETD tuning, I've become more careful about what I let the machine measure - seeing as so much is riding on the data that it collects!

Instead of "pure" anything, I'm more going for a balance of the two twelfths with the single and/or double octaves to set the middle framework - (D3-A4/A3-A4) (A3-E5/A3-A4), A3-A4-A5, which may lead to a different stretch than the RPT test master tuning.

Ron Koval
_________________________
Piano/instrument technician
www.ronkoval.com
@ronkoval

my piano videos:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=drwoodwind


Top
#2008978 - 01/04/13 02:19 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Thanks, Ron:

I may crunch the numbers another day to extract the iH. When A4 is at 0.0 cents and the third partial of D3 is at -1.95 cents then the D3-A4 12th is pure (as you know). Your examples are all close to that value and would sound virtually pure.

Ryan's examples are similar, so I would expect that they would also have virtually pure 12ths.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2008987 - 01/04/13 02:38 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Jeff

When you are crunching the numbers are you able to see why your pure 12ths rule applies? Why does the stretch of the 12th tend to be the same as the inharmonicity of a note's third partial?

It's sort of obvious that it might be but the real figures in your database are needed to prove the point.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2009386 - 01/05/13 10:51 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner


I continue to disagree but will chime in anyway smile. Stacked 4:2 octaves will ALWAYS produce wide double octaves. The smaller the piano, the wider the double octaves. And they SHOULD be slightly wide. On large grands, between 4:2 and 6:3 is appropriate in the midrange. On studio sized pianos, 4:2 is more appropriate to avoid double octaves that beat too much. And for spinets and most consoles, octaves between 2:1 and 4:2 are best. Interestingly these stretch schemes naturally happen with pure 12ths.



That is not my experience. Let's see if we can agree on some things and work from there.

First, let's define some things to make discussion simpler.
Let's define an octave that is tuned between a 4:2 and a 6:3 as a 4:2+, meaning slightly wider than a 4:2, but narrower than a 6:3.

Do you agree that a 4:2+ octave produces:

very wide 2:1
wide 4:2
narrow 6:3
very narrow 8:4

where the term "very" is used to indicate only slightly more wide or narrow than just the term wide or narrow.



Sure, we can agree that a wide 4:2 produces a wider 2:1 (measured in cents) and a narrow 6:3 produces a narrower 8:4 (again, measured in cents). Whether the term VERY wide or VERY narrow is appropriate is really up to interpretation. On a concert grand there is much less difference between octave types than on a spinet.

If we can agree that the difference in octave types is dependent on iH (the size of the piano) then we can continue our discussion to include the effect of the octave type and iH on the double octave.


Hi again Jeff,

I have read the posts concerning the ETD measurements of different master tunings and Steinway scales, etc. I see some conclusions as to octave sizes based on those measurements. I have to caution about using the ETD and making assumptions from its measurements because, as I understand it, the ETD measures the inharmonicity of a sample of strings, approximates a stretch curve from that, then measures the strings you are tuning by listening to a single partial. My understanding is that some partials are easier for the ETD to hear, that is why it changes which partial it listens to. (Notice how the partial listened to goes higher as the note you are tuning gets lower.) Then of course, it changes the offset it wants you tune tune to, so the whole string is still tuned where the ETD thinks it should go. This is the problem. We do not listen to a single partial when tuning. (Yes, when we use checks we do, but only in an attempt to get a best sound from the whole octave; i.e. we always listen as a whole as well. We know that is the key to using an ETD and getting a great tuning. Anyway...)
Also, we cannot make conclusions as to the octave size if the actual partial measurements are not at the partials we are concerned with. (I think you were able in a few examples, but not all.) And finally, the stretch offsets can't be related to each other unless they are all at the same partial; they will jump around and not be continuous.

Anyway, since you agree with me in the octave qualities of a 4:2+, then we can move on. I also agree with you that the difference of the qualities is less on a large piano with low IH.

I want to also add that the inharmonicity in the mid-range up to the high treble, increases at an even pace. This, someone (you?) showed very nicely by posting an image of Tremane's graph for scaling. (I actually used that once to scale my own treble strings by hand. Very nice.) Notice the straight line band that the IH should fit into. Also, some measurements, offered by someone, of offset show this nicely too, as the upper partials are getting more and more sharp, the higher they go.

So, evenly increasing IH, sharper partials as you go up. This is a linear relationship that produces (should produce) an even relationship to each of the higher partials. Assuming that the higher partials are sharper by an even amount at each partial, then we can begin to imagine a uniform relationship to each partial where each higher partial is sharper by the same amount, or if that amount is increasing, it is increasing by the same amount.

Also, to help this point, consider the formula for IH and frequency:

F(n) = Fn(1+Bn^2)^0.5

where 
B is the IH coefficient
n is the partial number
F(n) is the frequency of the nth partial
F is the frequency of the fundamental

Consider some typical example:
B = 0.0002
F = 100

and this graph of n versus F(n) is produced:

http://mrtuner.com/Partial_Frequency.bmp

So, do you agree that, for an octave with a given IH, the upper partials' frequencies are evenly increasing (not the same difference, but evenly increasing differences), and that each octave has a similar relationship, with each higher octave interval having a higher IH by an evenly increasing amount (given by Tremane's graph)?



Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/05/13 11:01 AM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2009409 - 01/05/13 11:38 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I realize that the graph is not clear because, while the line looks straight, actually, it is not. But after regressing the data twice, by taking the difference of the difference, I got to a linear relationship. The point I am trying to make for us to agree on, is that each higher partial frequency increases in some uniform way, not haphazardly up and down.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2009717 - 01/05/13 09:10 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Mark:

No, nothing is linear. Everything is closer to being logarithmic. Frequencies and beatrates double about every octave. IH doubles about every eight semitones on a concert grand and about every 12 semitones on spinets. Graphs can show straight lines, but that is because the scale on the graph is logarithmic.

But, yes, the partials are not haphazard, otherwise it would be like tuning a dime store Ukelele! But then sometimes the partials of bass strings can be haphazard, and so too can the scaling across a break.


Edited by UnrightTooner (01/05/13 09:12 PM)
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2009902 - 01/06/13 09:05 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Withindale]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Question:
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Why does the stretch of the 12th tend to be the same as the inharmonicity of a note's third partial?

Answer:
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Everything is closer to being logarithmic. Frequencies and beatrates double about every octave. IH doubles about every eight semitones on a concert grand and about every 12 semitones on spinets.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2009974 - 01/06/13 12:35 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Hello, On pianos with very low IH, (verticals or grands) tuning with octaves enlarged raise the speed of the 6th and the 17th to the point the piano get too clear and a little noisy.

That said it is relatively difficult to fight our natural ten,dency to push the enveloppe unltil it is really necessary.

About "pure" intervals, tempered 12 th sound almost pure, clean, and what is really noticed is when the 12ths or the 5ths are too large.

I just tuned avertical Hoffman (1991, original Langlau factory)

These pianos have a very clear tone, when you find such instruments you can suspect low iH.

I believe I tuned most of the center octaves in 2:1, and, BTW the 2:1 was really similar to 4:2 , I felt really no need to have the 4:2 relation emphased, on that piano A few checks provided me a slighly fatser 10th than the M3 may be 1 beats for 4 or 5 seconds more anyway not somethiong that can be counted and appreciated seriously (not as when you add 1/2 or 1/3 beats second.

WHat is perceived when raising in the treble, but also in the mediums, is the difference in resonance a new note tuned with an octave provide ;, I believe the resonance is due to the longer strings that react to any exitation.

I really could detect notes that where a little low, or too high, only because they did not p)roduce the same enveloppe when played with the octave, and eventually alone.

Then, sticking to the piano resonance is absolutely not a proof of justness, but for sure it is a big help, and it is very precise , way more I am suspecting usually (on a low iH piano anyway)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2010006 - 01/06/13 01:44 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Kamin

A few checks provided me a slighly fatser 10th than the M3


That's a 4:2+
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010075 - 01/06/13 02:58 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Sure Mark but I am not focusing on that, the speed between M3 and M10 could be the same or approx.

Anyway I find it very uneasy to compare the speed of different intervals, at last when you compare neighbors you can focus for the speed at the same moment in time. The acceleration and slowing of those FBI make them uneasy to compare if they are not the same.

I suggest that if we wait for the beats to be quiet enough to be counted more or less precisely, it is yet late in time, the speed is changing in time due to the waving motion, the fluctuations of volume, that make those beats difficult to count precisely.

Because of that I also believe that the tuner tend to suggest himself that the beats difference is what he want to hear, when we are in so little differences plus intervals difference (that is one of the first training of the tuner to recognize the acceleration between M3 and M10, but in the end it is not precise..



Edited by Kamin (01/06/13 02:59 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2010125 - 01/06/13 04:30 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Isaac,

I appreciate your comments and I think we may be able to see eye to eye.

Originally Posted By: Kamin
Sure Mark but I am not focusing on that, the speed between M3 and M10 could be the same or approx.

You say you are not focusing on it but you mention it in your last post. The fact that you can easily determine the speeds as M3<M10, that is what you say clearly, means they are 4:2+. There is no question. Not same or approximate, clearly you say faster.

Originally Posted By: Kamin

Anyway I find it very uneasy to compare the speed of different intervals, at last when you compare neighbors you can focus for the speed at the same moment in time. The acceleration and slowing of those FBI make them uneasy to compare if they are not the same.


Since I like to use checks, I do not have the same problem; I can easily hear very small differences in speeds; I listen for tone, not actual beat speeds. I use the attack of the note, where the beats are most prominent, as you have often suggested, and I make my assessment in a fraction of a second; no time to accel or decell.

Originally Posted By: Kamin

I suggest that if we wait for the beats to be quiet enough to be counted more or less precisely, it is yet late in time, the speed is changing in time due to the waving motion, the fluctuations of volume, that make those beats difficult to count precisely.

Most heartily agree. One must make assessment quickly, and not compare beat speeds, but tonal difference. E.g. faster beating intervals have a brighter tone for me, so I compare tone.

Originally Posted By: Kamin

Because of that I also believe that the tuner tend to suggest himself that the beats difference is what he want to hear, when we are in so little differences plus intervals difference (that is one of the first training of the tuner to recognize the acceleration between M3 and M10, but in the end it is not precise..

Again agree. That is why I use multiple checks including open interval tuning, whole interval tuning. I often catch my own mistakes. But in the end I always must use 4:2+ or I cannot tune all intervals clean. I am currently discussing with Mark Davis and hope to prove this point theoretically, and then I will post recordings on different pianos. Wish me luck. I suggest those who use 2:1+ (on large grands) may be tuning 4:2+ as well.


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/06/13 04:31 PM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010151 - 01/06/13 05:08 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
"Most heartily agree. One must make assessment quickly, and not compare beat speeds, but tonal difference. E.g. faster beating intervals have a brighter tone for me, so I compare tone."


Yes that's how it happens, I agree.

WHat IO state is that I dont allow my ears to focus on the 4:2 relation if this is not what the piano want as a final result. That said, we may remind that once the unison is tuned the final pitch is changing, most often for the lower, so sticking on the 4:2+ is certainly more secure than trying to attain an open 2:1 octave immediately.

In the end of the tuning, or when in small corrections, it is often unnecessary to change the pitch of the 3 strings to correct a 10th that is a little slow (hence an octave a tad compacted)

As I tune by strip muting on a large medium portion of the scale, I am obliged to enlarge a bit, despite that I keep the 23:1 resonance as my goal, may be if I follow the 4:2 this will tend to enlarge my octaves more when I'll be in the 5 th octave..

Possibly using the 2:1 is not so different in the end, simply it allow to work on the resonance level immediately in the tuning, while when tuning by FBI, the tuning is clean of course but we pay less attention to the octaves than we could.

Learning to tune with octaves beating slowly (as 1 for 5 sec) is an excellent exercise. the beat is primarily at 2:1, it helps to master all the beats at slow level.

I really agree that the beats of FBI are recognized in a pinch, that is what was unnerving me with the ETD, giving the impression I was waiting for the machine (as you dont move the pitch if you want a clear display)

Of course beats are not "counted" we learn to count ta stack of M3 when learning to tune, or to recognize the "movment" sensation provided by a correctly set M3 . Then, depending of the scale and the voicing, the speed sensation can differ a lot so hopefully slow beating intervals are also used.

I have seen also pianos tuned with some perfect FBI speed and progression, but without particular attention to the octaves nor 5ths. The evenness of progression of the FBI provided a very playable scheme, the piano did sound absolutely just and tuned, simply little of the own personality of the instrument is used then, it sound like those transparent papers that can be used to see thru... if you see what I mean.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2010313 - 01/06/13 11:23 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Kamin

That said, we may remind that once the unison is tuned the final pitch is changing, most often for the lower, so sticking on the 4:2+ is certainly more secure than trying to attain an open 2:1 octave immediately.

In the end of the tuning, or when in small corrections, it is often unnecessary to change the pitch of the 3 strings to correct a 10th that is a little slow (hence an octave a tad compacted)

As I tune by strip muting on a large medium portion of the scale, I am obliged to enlarge a bit, despite that I keep the 23:1 resonance as my goal, may be if I follow the 4:2 this will tend to enlarge my octaves more when I'll be in the 5 th octave..


I tune with open double unisons, no mute strip, for this reason. The unisons have already settled by the time I am listening to them. But this topic may require a new thread. I am not ready for that yet.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010315 - 01/06/13 11:30 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
I am currently discussing with Mark Davis and hope to prove this point theoretically, and then I will post recordings on different pianos. Wish me luck. I suggest those who use 2:1+ (on large grands) may be tuning 4:2+ as well.


The theoretical discussion is also with Jeff Deutschle, not just Mark Davis.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010332 - 01/07/13 12:00 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT


Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, Reblitz lists the highest P5 in the temperament octave as beating faster than the lowest P4, so your critique is way off.

For Pete's sake, the P4 beats (approx.) 1bps while the P5 beats once in 4 seconds, that's 0.25 bps. That's a huge difference, mathematically and aurally. Sorry, your critique doesn't pass the mustard.

I usually pass gas instead of mustard, but here's the page from Reblitz. As you can see, the lowest P4 and highest P5 both beat at 0.79 according to Reblitz.

Kees

Top
#2010354 - 01/07/13 01:16 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: DoelKees]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT


Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, Reblitz lists the highest P5 in the temperament octave as beating faster than the lowest P4, so your critique is way off.

For Pete's sake, the P4 beats (approx.) 1bps while the P5 beats once in 4 seconds, that's 0.25 bps. That's a huge difference, mathematically and aurally. Sorry, your critique doesn't pass the mustard.

I usually pass gas instead of mustard, but here's the page from Reblitz. As you can see, the lowest P4 and highest P5 both beat at 0.79 according to Reblitz.

Kees


Busted. I realized I had made that mistake when I saw the Wikipedia link but I never got around to correcting it. Thanks for bringing it up. However, the logic still applies because the Reblitz and Wikipedia both are listing theoretical data for a piano with 0 iH, no stretch. I have stated that I believe the stretch is taken up mostly by the fourth in reality. I stand by my claim that 4:2+ octaves in the mid and high range are superior but I am open to criticism. This is my experience with every piano I tune, no matter what the size. I am still trying to prove the theory.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010417 - 01/07/13 06:00 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: Kamin

That said, we may remind that once the unison is tuned the final pitch is changing, most often for the lower, so sticking on the 4:2+ is certainly more secure than trying to attain an open 2:1 octave immediately.

In the end of the tuning, or when in small corrections, it is often unnecessary to change the pitch of the 3 strings to correct a 10th that is a little slow (hence an octave a tad compacted)

As I tune by strip muting on a large medium portion of the scale, I am obliged to enlarge a bit, despite that I keep the 23:1 resonance as my goal, may be if I follow the 4:2 this will tend to enlarge my octaves more when I'll be in the 5 th octave..


I tune with open double unisons, no mute strip, for this reason. The unisons have already settled by the time I am listening to them. But this topic may require a new thread. I am not ready for that yet.


I follow the same logic/principle ( 2 strings unison minimally necessary to know/hear the final pitch of a note) , but I am more at ease with the strip, as I said final corrections can be done most often without changing the center wire.



Edited by Kamin (01/07/13 06:08 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2010447 - 01/07/13 07:13 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT


Anyway, no matter which way you cut it, Reblitz lists the highest P5 in the temperament octave as beating faster than the lowest P4, so your critique is way off.

For Pete's sake, the P4 beats (approx.) 1bps while the P5 beats once in 4 seconds, that's 0.25 bps. That's a huge difference, mathematically and aurally. Sorry, your critique doesn't pass the mustard.

I usually pass gas instead of mustard, but here's the page from Reblitz. As you can see, the lowest P4 and highest P5 both beat at 0.79 according to Reblitz.

Kees


Busted. I realized I had made that mistake when I saw the Wikipedia link but I never got around to correcting it. Thanks for bringing it up. However, the logic still applies because the Reblitz and Wikipedia both are listing theoretical data for a piano with 0 iH, no stretch. I have stated that I believe the stretch is taken up mostly by the fourth in reality. I stand by my claim that 4:2+ octaves in the mid and high range are superior but I am open to criticism. This is my experience with every piano I tune, no matter what the size. I am still trying to prove the theory.


Mark:

No big deal as far as I am concerned. It was just an error, a "brain-fart". It is all part of exploring a subject.

OK, you are trying to prove a theory: 4:2+ octaves in the mid and high range are superior. Starting with a clean slate, how do you intend to prove it?
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2010451 - 01/07/13 07:21 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Withindale]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Question:
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Why does the stretch of the 12th tend to be the same as the inharmonicity of a note's third partial?

Answer:
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Everything is closer to being logarithmic. Frequencies and beatrates double about every octave. IH doubles about every eight semitones on a concert grand and about every 12 semitones on spinets.


Please do not try to put answers into my mouth. Your comparison is like apples and oranges.

I am gong to be brutally honest. I have noticed that you will hop from one side of a discussion to another just to try to get an argument started or to keep it going. For that reason I will not give you an answer. I am not interested in playing games.

It is sad, because I have much to say on the subject, and much to ask. It is not something I understand completely. If someone else starts a serious inquiry, preferable by starting a new Topic about the effect of iH and stretch on the relationship of different beatrates, I will enthusiastically join in.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2010453 - 01/07/13 07:28 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
I am currently discussing with Mark Davis and hope to prove this point theoretically, and then I will post recordings on different pianos. Wish me luck. I suggest those who use 2:1+ (on large grands) may be tuning 4:2+ as well.


The theoretical discussion is also with Jeff Deutschle, not just Mark Davis.


Thank you, Mark.

I suspect Isaac is right. The difference between aa A3-A4 2:1 octave and a 4:2 octave on a concert grand is only about one cent, or 1/4 bps. Delibrately tuning a wide 2:1 could easily result in a wide 4:2.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2010471 - 01/07/13 08:31 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Please do not try to put answers into my mouth. Your comparison is like apples and oranges.

I am gong to be brutally honest. I have noticed that you will hop from one side of a discussion to another just to try to get an argument started or to keep it going. For that reason I will not give you an answer. I am not interested in playing games.

Jeff

We are at cross purposes again.

I asked because I was interested.

The logarithmic nature of iH, its doubling every octave or thereabouts, is what you need to know to show that the stretch of the 12th tends to be the same as the inharmonicity of a note's third partial.

You assumed I was playing games, loading the dice, on a previous occasion. I was not, and am not, but I let it rest.

I very much doubt that I hop from one side of a discussion to another for the sake of it. People take me to task for being too single minded in pursuit of an argument.

It's true I have kept the odd discussion going. Have you ever done such a thing? What is wrong with that in a forum anyway, interesting things often emerge.

No doubt I have sometimes misunderstood where you were coming from, as they say, but I am not so sure I'm alone in that.

I will leave beat rates to you and Mark but perhaps I'll ask a question about the effect of the relative strength of partials on tuning one day.


Edited by Withindale (01/08/13 06:22 AM)
Edit Reason: Quote
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2010525 - 01/07/13 10:39 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
OK, you are trying to prove a theory: 4:2+ octaves in the mid and high range are superior. Starting with a clean slate, how do you intend to prove it?


Well, we have agreed that a 4:2+ octave produces:

2:1 wider (instead of very wide)
4:2 wide
6:3 narrow
8:4 narrower

and that the 2:1 and the 8:4 beat at a similar speed,
and the 4:2 and the 6:3 beat at a similar speed.

Right?

Also, you have agreed that the higher partial frequencies are increasing in difference from the theoretical, the higher up we go on any one string (from the formula) and that iH increases uniformly for the mid and high treble (from Tremane's graph).

Are we good so far?


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/07/13 10:40 AM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010558 - 01/07/13 12:00 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
OK, you are trying to prove a theory: 4:2+ octaves in the mid and high range are superior. Starting with a clean slate, how do you intend to prove it?


Well, we have agreed that a 4:2+ octave produces:

2:1 wider (instead of very wide)
4:2 wide
6:3 narrow
8:4 narrower

and that the 2:1 and the 8:4 beat at a similar speed,
and the 4:2 and the 6:3 beat at a similar speed.

Right?

Also, you have agreed that the higher partial frequencies are increasing in difference from the theoretical, the higher up we go on any one string (from the formula) and that iH increases uniformly for the mid and high treble (from Tremane's graph).

Are we good so far?


Are we good so far? Partly yes. The part that is no you should find useful in your proof, although in the end I think it is a matter of priority and preference.

According to Young's paper: http://www.afn.org/~afn49304/youngnew.htm the amount that any given partial is higher in cents than the theoretical frequency equals the string's iH in cents times the square of the partial number. Now according to emperical measurement, this is only approximate. But rather than resort to tabular values, as Mr. Scott's Tunelab program does (the tabular values can be found in the online manual), let's just use Young's equations for discussion.

When including the effects of iH when calculating beatrates of an interval we must remember that the first partial is also affected. This is discussed in the paper. Also remember that iH is different for each note and in a well scaled piano will be mostly logarithmic.

All that said, if you "crunch the numbers" for an octave where the 4:2 partial match beats wide at the same speed as the 6:3 partial match beats narrow, the 2:1 partial match will also beat at this exact same speed. The 8:4 partial match beats much faster, however.

So I disagree "... that the 2:1 and the 8:4 beat at a similar speed, and the 4:2 and the 6:3 beat at a similar speed." Actually the 2:1, 4:2 and 6:3 beat at a similar speed. The 8:4 beats much faster. But let's remember that the cents that an interval is wide or narrow is another thing altogether. (I have mentioned this before.)

So, Mark, you haven't mentioned how you might decide to try to "prove" that 4:2+ octaves are superior. If you were to say that your proof would be that there is a "masking effect" you would have a good point. But you should "crunch the numbers yourself." smile

_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2010701 - 01/07/13 04:49 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
I'll send a video. Wish me luck. But even with a video, if you are focusing your hearing on the partials, you will hear a slow beat. You should be listening to the "whole octave sound" as Virgil Smith encouraged, listening more like a musician, less like a piano technician. Maybe it is an aural illusion, but one that I definitely hear and use to tune octaves, without the need to use checks.


Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Again agree. That is why I use multiple checks including open interval tuning, whole interval tuning. I often catch my own mistakes. But in the end I always must use 4:2+ or I cannot tune all intervals clean. I am currently discussing with Mark Davis and hope to prove this point theoretically, and then I will post recordings on different pianos. Wish me luck. I suggest those who use 2:1+ (on large grands) may be tuning 4:2+ as well.


Mark, unfortunenately you seem to make a lot of contradicting statements as you go along, choosing to pretend and forget what you have said. I have found this throughout your writings.

I am not really sure what your whole argument is about and what you are trying to prove?

You have been threatening to post a video on many occasion and for sometime now. I think you should either just stop saying you are going to do it or just get on and post it/do it.

I tried your test m6=M17 and found it to be invalid in the middle and treble of the piano. What part of the scale are you using this check? BTW, I do use the M6/M17 check and clearly hear it.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2010758 - 01/07/13 05:23 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Mark,

Sorry for your frustration. Hopefully I can clarify for you.

Yes I said

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Maybe it is an aural illusion, but one that I definitely hear and use to tune octaves, without the need to use checks.


and

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Again agree. That is why I use multiple checks including open interval tuning, whole interval tuning.


But I didn't say I don't use checks. I said I can tune octaves "without the need to use checks". I just am more consistent with the checks.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

Mark, unfortunenately you seem to make a lot of contradicting statements as you go along, choosing to pretend and forget what you have said. I have found this throughout your writings.


I think I have shown that you are making assumptions about my writings and that I am not contradicting or choosing to pretend and forget. What I do know is that it is easy to become quite frustrated when someone is trying to tell you something that you don't agree with.

As I see it, you have three choices when someone is trying to convince you of something you do not agree with:

1) Ignore them and consider them to be clueless and off track with their theories. (I'm not opposed to that)

2) Consider the topic beyond your comprehension at the moment and choose to revisit it later.

3) Make a serious effort to figure out what they are talking about. (And in the process you will find holes in their argument and that will help them patch those holes and understand their own principles better. That's the thesis process.)

I hope you choose 3)

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

I am not really sure what your whole argument is about and what you are trying to prove?


Simple, that the 4:2+ octave is superior for a fine tuning in the mid to high treble. (4:2+ being between a 4:2 and a 6:3)

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

You have been threatening to post a video on many occasion and for sometime now. I think you should either just stop saying you are going to do it or just get on and post it/do it.


Sorry. I have some recordings but it takes time. I do have another life. I want to wait for the recordings until Jeff and I have finished our conversation.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

I tried your test m6=M17 and found it to be invalid in the middle and treble of the piano. What part of the scale are you using this check? BTW, I do use the M6/M17 check and clearly hear it.


Are you using the m6 BELOW the check note, for the triple octave test?
Also, I didn't say it was easy. It is difficult to compare these fast beating intervals. You must listen for tone, and match that. You can also play all three notes together and listen for beating of the beats (wah-Wah-WAh-WAH-WAh-Wah-wah-Wah...) If you hear that, they are NOT equal.

The range is starting at F3F6, and then I use it as I am going down from F3. E.g. E3E6, D#3D#6, etc, until the break. But lately I have been able to get it to work past the break.

I use the M6M17 test too and started using it about 5 years ago. Then, as I stretched out my hearing and tried to get better double octaves, etc, I was drawn to temper the 12ths by an amount that produced better double octaves and pure triple octaves. (They are probably not pure; who can really tell at those speeds? But I can hear when they are not close enough and a re-listening of the other related intervals usually smokes out a drifter/error.)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010824 - 01/07/13 08:10 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Hi Mark, I think I have shown that you are making assumptions about my writings and that I am not contradicting or choosing to pretend and forget. What I do know is that it is easy to become quite frustrated when someone is trying to tell you something that you don't agree with.


Mark, here you go again. Where do you get that I am frustrated?
I may dislike certain traits of yours but I am certainly not frustrated.

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
As I see it, you have three choices when someone is trying to convince you of something you do not agree with:

1) Ignore them and consider them to be clueless and off track with their theories. (I'm not opposed to that)


I do not consider you clueless at all. Though I do not agree with you on everything you have said and do not like your manner in most, if not all your posts.

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
2) Consider the topic beyond your comprehension at the moment and choose to revisit it later.


What topic are you speaking about here? Your superior 4:2+ octave size?

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
3) Make a serious effort to figure out what they are talking about. (And in the process you will find holes in their argument and that will help them patch those holes and understand their own principles better. That's the thesis process.)

I hope you choose 3)


Where to from here Mark? I know the 4:2 narrow, just and wide octave and tests. I tune 4:2 just and 4:2+ octaves for my temperament and treble. So what would you like me to say? That you are right that the 4:2+ octave in the middle of the piano is superior because you say so?

I would have you to re-read Ryan Sowers fine post!

Originally Posted By: rysowers
Originally Posted By: Mark

I have been tuning for 13 years, teaching tuning for 7 and am a mechanical engineer. I think I know what I'm talking about. It appears your constant opposition to my teachings show your lack of openness. How can you go against the largest and most respected piano technology association in the world (PTG) when they state the proper size of the octave in the midrange is 4:2+.

Mark, 13 years is a modest amount of experience in this field. I've been at it for 20 and am discovering new things about tuning every year. That's part of the fun of this business. I suspect in 5 years you may look back at your old thinking at realize that you didn't have it all figured out. At least that's what should happen to an open minded student of the craft.

I'm not sure what mechanical engineering has to do with teaching tuning. Maybe you can clarify that statement.

I would be careful using the PTG as an authority on tuning. The standard that the PTG promotes and tests for is a minimal standard. A tuner has to work within a 1 cent tolerance relative to the "Master Tuning" in the middle two octaves in both temperament and unisons to get a perfect score. The tolerances increase until they are at 6 cents for the lowest and highest octaves. In fact, in one case I observed an examinee get a very poor score on the temperament, (under 60 percent) yet passed the high treble with very high scores (over 90 percent). He was good at tuning octaves! As he progressed up the scale the tolerances became wide enough to give him better scores.

In PTG literature you will find differing opinions among experts. I do not believe that PTG as an organization has an "official" stand on what the right octave size is.





Edited by Mark Davis (01/07/13 08:17 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2010868 - 01/07/13 09:40 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
if you "crunch the numbers" for an octave where the 4:2 partial match beats wide at the same speed as the 6:3 partial match beats narrow, the 2:1 partial match will also beat at this exact same speed.

Could you please demonstrate this surprising (and not well-known) fact?

If not I will, but I learned this from you...

Kees

Top
#2010869 - 01/07/13 09:42 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Mark, I do not like the tone of your posts. They are verging on an attack of my personality and I believe that is against the forum rules.

My reason for continuing these posts is to prove "my superior 4:2+ octaves" But, they are not just mine. Read what you posted by Bill Bremmer:

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Bill Bremmer

In other words, the test for a 4:2 octave should reveal a slightly faster F3-A4 M10 than F3-A3 M3 and the test for a 6:3 octave should reveal a slightly slower C4-A4 M6 than A3-C4 m3. When you have found the spot for A3 which reveals this slight discrepancy between the 4:2 and 6:3 tests, you will hear that the A3-A4 octave has a very slow beat to it, about one beat in every two seconds. This is now considered the optimum width for the initial A3-A4 octave in Equal Temperament and what is used by
most CTE’s to set up the Master Tuning for the Tuning Exam.


That's the 4:2+.

So, if you want to know why it is superior, keep reading the posts. Otherwise, stop attacking me please.


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/07/13 09:52 PM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010878 - 01/07/13 10:04 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Mark, I do not like the tone of your posts. They are verging on an attack of my personality and I believe that is against the forum rules.

People get upset when you mention 13 y experience and having a degree in Mechanical Engineering to support your arguments, that's all. I've got similar reactions when mentioning my PhD.

I think Jeff hit the nail on the theoretical mustard with the observation about the 2:1, 4:2, and 6:3 beatrates being equal when tuning equal beating 6:3/4:2 octaves in the mid-upper range. Something like killing 3 birds with one stone. This may be the reason for the 4:2+ being the best.

Of course, the proof is in the mustard. smile


Kees

Top
#2010948 - 01/08/13 01:46 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ok, so I finally managed to upload a video of a piano I tuned with pure triple octaves using the P4 window and the pure triple octave test.

Please be kind. It took me over an hour to upload and add subtitles. The piano was not a good one and it was a pitch raise, so there is a mis-matched bichord and some unison drifting. But before the drift, I thought it sounded pretty good.

I just put my phone face down on the piano, so you don't see anything, and I didn't talk because I was tuning at a customer's home. I think the subtitles make it easier to listen and appreciate.

Note: You have to turn on the subtitles to read what's going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eci3cwlVEM



Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/08/13 01:47 AM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010953 - 01/08/13 01:52 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I just listened again. The F5 is flat. M3>M10. But the rest still stands. It's not the right piano to show this stuff on.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2010959 - 01/08/13 02:43 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Mark, I do not like the tone of your posts. They are verging on an attack of my personality and I believe that is against the forum rules.

My reason for continuing these posts is to prove "my superior 4:2+ octaves" But, they are not just mine. Read what you posted by Bill Bremmer:

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis quoting Bill Bremmer

In other words, the test for a 4:2 octave should reveal a slightly faster F3-A4 M10 than F3-A3 M3 and the test for a 6:3 octave should reveal a slightly slower C4-A4 M6 than A3-C4 m3. When you have found the spot for A3 which reveals this slight discrepancy between the 4:2 and 6:3 tests, you will hear that the A3-A4 octave has a very slow beat to it, about one beat in every two seconds. This is now considered the optimum width for the initial A3-A4 octave in Equal Temperament and what is used by
most CTE’s to set up the Master Tuning for the Tuning Exam.


That's the 4:2+.

So, if you want to know why it is superior, keep reading the posts. Otherwise, stop attacking me please.


Mark, firstly, the problem is this, you are stating your opinion, and maybe some others too with regard to the “superiority” of the 4:2+ octave. That’s fine. I do not have to agree?

The reason I re-posted Ryans quote is to show just this, that there are differing views on the optimal octave size, and I would go further and say that this is probably because of personal preference (like you) and the pianos preference (the piano will not sound good apart from what is dictating)!?

I agree with what Bill Bremmer says but not entirely, as I have stated throughout this thread with regards to what I know and practice. I do not have to agree with everything Bill says either?

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
My reason for continuing these posts is to prove "my superior 4:2+ octaves" But, they are not just mine. Read what you posted by Bill Bremmer: .


Yes, this is what you’re all about and you have said it so well. Please take note of your assertion and claiming that this is your superior 4:2+ octave etc…

This is where the problem begins and ends Mark. I have not harped on this at all. Just stated my difference of opinion and preferance. You, however are harping on this one string and it is just plain obsessive and boring.

Now, Mark the following is your private email to me,

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
“Where the h**l do you get off criticizing me like that, after I spent all that time trying to help you understand superior tuning techniques AFTER YOU ASKED ME? REMEMBER? Don't bother asking me any more questions or posting your snide remarks to me about about how you don't like my tone. You're off my radar.”


I have not asked you to teach me any "superior tuning techniques" I have not been asking you, you have just been sprouting your version of the story and your preferance and your hobby horse.

In fact, the truth of the matter is, I have actually written about certain aspects of tuning that i have learned and that others have written about (from whom I have learnt).

I think you prove who has the wrong attitude in this whole discussion. Please do not send me any further private mail. I do not appreciate or need them!

Please consider the following for your own edification,

Originally Posted By: rysowers
Originally Posted By: Mark

I have been tuning for 13 years, teaching tuning for 7 and am a mechanical engineer. I think I know what I'm talking about. It appears your constant opposition to my teachings show your lack of openness. How can you go against the largest and most respected piano technology association in the world (PTG) when they state the proper size of the octave in the midrange is 4:2+.

Mark, 13 years is a modest amount of experience in this field. I've been at it for 20 and am discovering new things about tuning every year. That's part of the fun of this business. I suspect in 5 years you may look back at your old thinking at realize that you didn't have it all figured out. At least that's what should happen to an open minded student of the craft.

I'm not sure what mechanical engineering has to do with teaching tuning. Maybe you can clarify that statement.

I would be careful using the PTG as an authority on tuning. The standard that the PTG promotes and tests for is a minimal standard. A tuner has to work within a 1 cent tolerance relative to the "Master Tuning" in the middle two octaves in both temperament and unisons to get a perfect score. The tolerances increase until they are at 6 cents for the lowest and highest octaves. In fact, in one case I observed an examinee get a very poor score on the temperament, (under 60 percent) yet passed the high treble with very high scores (over 90 percent). He was good at tuning octaves! As he progressed up the scale the tolerances became wide enough to give him better scores.

In PTG literature you will find differing opinions among experts. I do not believe that PTG as an organization has an "official" stand on what the right octave size is.


I agree with Ryan entirely and here I stand!




Edited by Mark Davis (01/08/13 07:20 AM)
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2011025 - 01/08/13 07:08 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
...

Now, Mark the following is your private email to me,

...


If anybody wonders, this is one of the reasons I have my private email turned off. I prefer to have everything above board.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2011026 - 01/08/13 07:17 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Mark, I also do kindly request that you start your own thread now, maybe something along the lines of "My superior 4:2+ octaves".
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2011028 - 01/08/13 07:23 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
RonTuner Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1617
Loc: Chicagoland
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
I just listened again. The F5 is flat. M3>M10. But the rest still stands. It's not the right piano to show this stuff on.


And there's "the rub" whenever techs start these tuning discussions... We tend to come up with "universal approaches" for the "best tuning method", never to admit that they are only universal on really good scales. We go to tuning classes using big pianos. I know I've written before that Virgil Smith was limiting his tuning practice to Steinway grands by the time he was working out his tuning approach....

What does that let us do? Blame any tuning problems due to a specific approach on the "problem scale" of a lesser piano!

So yes, keep up the research - just realize that it may only be the best approach for your ears on certain pianos - which is a very good thing for any tech to discover and share!

Ron Koval
_________________________
Piano/instrument technician
www.ronkoval.com
@ronkoval

my piano videos:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=drwoodwind


Top
#2011029 - 01/08/13 07:24 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: DoelKees]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
if you "crunch the numbers" for an octave where the 4:2 partial match beats wide at the same speed as the 6:3 partial match beats narrow, the 2:1 partial match will also beat at this exact same speed.

Could you please demonstrate this surprising (and not well-known) fact?

If not I will, but I learned this from you...

Kees


It should be demonstrated. I encourage Mark C. to do so. I think it would be a good thing for all concerned.

But what I don't know is why this happens. It can only happen in the presence of iH. I guess it is either a natural result of the square of the partial/cent-logarithm thing or perhaps some bizarre numbers theory thing. I do not have a science degree. wink I wonder about the octave size/pure 12th relationship, too. I can demonstrate it but do not know why.

This reminds me of a joke about two contestants on a quiz show. The host could not stump either one, so he invited them to ask each other questions. The first contestant asked the second one about a species of ground hog (the big day is coming...) whose hole has no dirt around it. How does it dig a hole and not leave any dirt? The second contestant replied, that is easy, the groundhog starts from the bottom of the hole and ends at the top. Now my question for you is: How did the little bugger get down there in the first place? The second contestant won.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2011198 - 01/08/13 01:32 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
if you "crunch the numbers" for an octave where the 4:2 partial match beats wide at the same speed as the 6:3 partial match beats narrow, the 2:1 partial match will also beat at this exact same speed.

Could you please demonstrate this surprising (and not well-known) fact?

If not I will, but I learned this from you...

Kees


It should be demonstrated. I encourage Mark C. to do so. I think it would be a good thing for all concerned.

But what I don't know is why this happens. It can only happen in the presence of iH. I guess it is either a natural result of the square of the partial/cent-logarithm thing or perhaps some bizarre numbers theory thing.

OK so I crunched the symbols.

First of all let's use the following inharmonicity model.
The offset in cents of the k-th partial is
B*(c[k]-1)
where B is the inharmonicity constant of the note, and c[k]=k*k according to Young's model, but experimentally the following lookup table (taken from the Tunelab manual) is more accurate:

c[1] = 1
c[2] = 4
c[3]=8.45
c[4]=13.18
c[5]=19.72
c[6]=27.27

Now let's tune an octave with inharmonicity constants B1 for the lower note and B2 for the upper note, such that 4:2 and 6:3 are equal beating. The 2:1 octave is now beating at the same speed as the 4:2 and 6:3 if the following formula holds:

B1*(3*c[6]-8*c[4]+5*c[2]) = B2*(3*c[3]-8*c[2]+5).

If we now plug in Young's formula both parenthesized expressions turn out to be exactly zero so 2:1 is always beating at the same speed irrespective of the inharmonicity values B1 and B2. This is just a lucky numerical coincidence.

But if we use the more realistic Tunelab table this is no longer true, and instead we get a condition relating B2 and B1 which turns out to be

B2 = 2.2*B1.

Magically this relation is not too far off on most piano's in the mid-upper range so the equal beating phenomena is still approximately true!

The derivation is a couple of pages of high school algebra which I could post if someone really wants to see it.

Kees

Top
#2011355 - 01/08/13 05:26 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
To have a look at the numbers associated with pure 12ths I ran some up. Using a Steinway B inharmonicity curve, and a pure 12th for the ET stretch, the A3/A4 octave came out at:

2:1 0.55 bps wide
4:2 0.30 bps wide
6:3 0.73 bps narrow

I guess this a bit wider than some prefer but can see why it is a reasonable basis for an aural tuning.


Edited by Withindale (01/09/13 02:39 AM)
Edit Reason: typos
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2011702 - 01/09/13 01:15 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: RonTuner]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
And there's "the rub" whenever techs start these tuning discussions... We tend to come up with "universal approaches" for the "best tuning method", never to admit that they are only universal on really good scales. We go to tuning classes using big pianos. I know I've written before that Virgil Smith was limiting his tuning practice to Steinway grands by the time he was working out his tuning approach...


Ron, as I am the OP, you lump me into the same group that make claims of a universal approach for the “best tuning method” never to admit that they are only universal on really good scales.

If you really want to, that is ok by me. However, please take note of the following excerpts from some of my posts in this thread.

I hope you can see that I clearly have not done as you have said. BTW, this is the second time that I have brought this to your attention.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
The important thing is to check your work as you progress through the tuning, so that one has the wood and the trees in view, not missing anything, as much as is possible to the fallible human mind.

So, as I have been saying, one need's to listen to the whole tone SBI's and listen to the whole tone RBI's to make sure one's work is as accurate as possible, whether it be for E.T or H.T.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
The other thing is this, as one checks one's work/tuning as it develops and progresses, with all the available checks, SBI's and RBI's, then one is tuning objectively and one is in a position to make the subjective and subtle changes (the art of tuning)that are necessary. .


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Ron, which some folks don't seem to be getting is this,

I am just saying that one needs to check one's work, whether it be spinet, studio or grand. Check your workk as it develops and progresses through the tuning. Now, one needs to realise that in what I am saying, one may not tune a piano as quickly as other folks but in the end it is solid, stable, musical and accurate.

I just find that for a better, more sure and accurate tuning I check my work. Once again, I re-iterate what Virgil Smith has said,

"The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessaery to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks. Checks are used before the note is tuned to determine if the note is sharp or flat and by how much,during the tuning, and after it is tuned to check the accuracy of the tuning." .


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Every piano is different and I tune accordingly. I do not hold fast to any particular sequence except checking my work as I progress and smoothing things out as I go, in order for the best possible tuning for that particular piano.

I think that I am a whole lot more flexible when it comes to poor quality pianos and poorly scaled pianos, one just has to get through them, but nevertheless one is checking and getting a feeling for the piano and for what is going on and therefore one is in a better position as to what compromises to make and how. .


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I hope and trust that it may be plainly evident that i have made tried and trusted claims, though maybe different from others.


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
The other thing is this, which you are not grasping/accepting and that is this, which I have been saying throughout this thread and say it again and I do think that this was the key to a powerful technique of and for tuning, but nothing fancy, but which Virgil said and practiced, .
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2011704 - 01/09/13 01:24 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: DoelKees]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
The derivation is a couple of pages of high school algebra which I could post if someone really wants to see it.


Kees

I'd be interested, the back of my envelope soon ran out on this one. PM if you prefer.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2011727 - 01/09/13 02:18 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: RonTuner]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1056
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Hi Ron,

Thanks for listening and making comments.

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
And there's "the rub" whenever techs start these tuning discussions... We tend to come up with "universal approaches" for the "best tuning method", never to admit that they are only universal on really good scales.


As a teacher of a one week basic tuning class, I am constantly trying to develop and explain a universal method that will give good results fast. I have had very good success, so I am trying to pass that on. These techniques, I personally use on all sizes of pianos with differing scales. The only difference is how close to perfect I can get. The P4 window creates an unbelievably accurate and consistent stretch on concert grands.

Originally Posted By: RonTuner

What does that let us do? Blame any tuning problems due to a specific approach on the "problem scale" of a lesser piano!


Well, I was not blaming the piano on my poor tuning, that I blame on myself. I could have muted off one of the F3 bichords and fixed the F5, then it would have sounded awesome.

Did you listen to the recording I posted in a new thread? That was a different piano. Not a pitch raise, but still a small console. Much better results, same technique.

Here is the link to the new recording:

http://youtu.be/ys_2vxtEAnw


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (01/09/13 02:23 PM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2011732 - 01/09/13 02:26 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
It was Kent's article "Every Which Way Temperament which really got me heading in the right direction with regards to striving for accurate tunings.

Some excerpts,

"If one learns nothing else from this paper, one should learn the importance of using fourths and fifths “against ”one another in a refinement procedure to improve a temperament after tuning through a temperament sequence.

The single, distinguishing characteristic of equal temperament is that chromatically ascending and/or descending intervals have smoothly progressing beat rates. The procedure for aurally tuning a piano in equal temperament “lays the bearings” for the tuning within a single octave in the middle of the piano, in this case, F3to F4. The procedure for tuning the temperament octave in equal temperament starts with tuning each note to approximations of its proper beat rates, and then may be followed by a separate refinement procedure to tweak the approximations to achieve the smoothest possible progression of beat rates. The two-step procedure is useful because the exact beat rates necessary to achieve the smoothest possible progression of beat rates of “parallel intervals” will vary a bit from piano to piano due to the variability of inharmonicity. Inharmonicity varies both from piano to piano and through the scale of individual pianos…

There are many “bearing plans” or “temperament sequences” to tune equal temperament. It may be necessary to try many of them to find one that fits your particular aptitudes. There are many temperament sequences because a given tech may be unable to make a given sequence work correctly. The Every-Which-Way plan makes use of many checks early in the sequence. Sequences that use fewer checks may allow the tech to accumulate tuning errors as the sequence progresses. The beauty of the Every-Which-Way plan is that you can use more and more checks as one progresses through the sequence and tune each new note as a “best compromise” with all the previous notes, that is, each new note will not depend only on the last note tuned, so there will be more of a chance that errors will not accumulate in the later notes tuned. The last notes to be tuned in the sequence are tuned from many other previously tuned notes, that is, from “every which way.”…


The piano tech must have general knowledge of the beat rates of intervals relative to the beat rates of other intervals:

Assuming the octaves are stretched, fourths beat faster than fifths in the temperament octave and the beat rates of fourths and fifths can be inversely proportional. That is, if there is a fast fifth then there is likely a slow fourth somewhere or vice versa. This is the basis for an extremely powerful set of checks. If a properly expanded perfect fourth and a properly contracted perfect fifth have a common top or bottom note,and if you change the tuning of the common note, the width of both intervals will be changed; widening the intervals will speed up the beat rate of the fourth and at the same time will slow down the beat rate of the fifth; narrowing the intervals will slow down the beat rate of the fourth and speed up the beat rate of the fifth. This inverse relationship is one of the most powerful checks available in the tuning of equal temperament. The successful piano tuner will have learned to use these checks well. Check the relative beat rates of the fourth and fifth on one side of a note being checked. Example: to check the tuning of D4 within the temperament octave, play A3-D4 and G3-D4. The fourth should beat faster than the fifth. If the fifth is too fast and the fourth too pure perhaps the D4 is flat; if the fourth and fifth beat at the same rate, perhaps the D4 is flat; if the fourth beats too fast and the fifth is too pure, perhaps the D4 is sharp. Do not fail to learn to use 4ths and 5ths in this way...


The interval of the perfect fourth and the interval of the perfect fifth are inverted forms of the same interval.(That is, take the bottom note of a fifth and move it up an octave, and you now have a fourth.) In the mathematical model of equal temperament, perfect fourths and perfect fifths beat at much the same rate. But inthe tuning of real pianos, fourths beat faster. Why? It is because of stretch. There exists the P4-P5 test of the 4:2octave; that is, there is a check of the 4:2 octave that uses as a reference the note that is a perfect 4th above the lower note and the perfect 5th below the upper note. In this check, if the 4th and 5th beat exactly the same then the 4:2 octave is beatless or “just”. But we generally do not tune octaves this way. When tuning octaves up the scale we generally raise the top note and slow the fifth down. As Alan Crane puts it, “Stretch happens.”
If the fourths beat faster than the fifths, then there is sufficient stretch…

“If one must choose between tunings that feel right and tunings that check out right, go with the objective checks every time.”

From my personal experience I know that feeling good about a tuning does not guarantee that the tuning is actually good. Tunings that are a struggle and unsatisfying when they are over may be very good indeed. Emotions are a poor guide. Learn this for yourself by checking many tunings the day after or as soon as you can after the fact when the mood is different.

Pianos are not necessarily in tune because you have performed a tuning procedure on them; they are in tune when you have tuned them AND the tuning checks still work out when you go back to check your work…"



Edited by Mark Davis (01/09/13 02:36 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012126 - 01/10/13 08:04 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Mark D:

Can we tie together the original subject of this Topic (clean sounding octaves) with temperment sequences? I think this is incredibly important. For instance: fourths and fifths have the inherent ability to test the 4:2 octave, while ladders of contiguous M3s check the 8:4 octave, and ladders of contiguous m3s the 6:3 octave.

Mr. Swafford's method is basically to use all tools available, which is good. But what happens when one check is at complete odds with another? It can be accepted as an "indulgent mystery" and the least-worse compromise made. But if it is understood that some checks are more appropriate for one type of octave than another, a better choice can be made. In particular I am talking about when dealing with a scaling break, whether actually setting a temperment or expanding one.

I believe that if the cleanest sounding octave is chosen the type should be determined and then the co-responding temperment tests and checks should take priority over others. Or a certain octave type can be chosen (if it results in being clean enough) because of the priority of temperment tests and checks that will be used.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012204 - 01/10/13 11:20 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Hello Jeff

I want to make an important qualifier, and it is this, fudging/compromising when tuning and knowing when to, why to and how to is a key in tuning.

There are at least three camps of tuners/thinking that I know of, maybe more?

One camp favours RBI's and the other favours SBI's, though they both use either or in tuning. The third camp, seems to use it all. In other words, fudge it all!? Cluster tuning and ETD tuning come to mind

However, in saying that, and from what I understand is, it is that most tuners are striving for the most consonant tuning possible. Then again there are those that will sacrifice the consonance saying that it is the RBI's (some/more dissonance?) which adds/brings the true character out that they and or their clients are looking for.

In saying what I have just said, the whole issue of the amount of stretch comes into play now and so on...

I tend to favour both the SBI and RBI, sometimes tuning for just D8ves and sometimes 4:1+ D8ves and sometimes tempered 12ths and sometimes pure 12ths and so on.

With regards to scaling breaks, I in general use the SBI's to determine/guide. Once I have tuned through I may/will listen to the RBI's and make minor corrections if I think I can and need to.

I have a general understanding of most of the important intervals. I tune for the best possible sounding tuning for the piano that I am tuning, and that may involve much compromise/fudging or hardly any at all.

I hope this answers your question and submission?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012208 - 01/10/13 11:26 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Sorry Jeff, to answer, finding tests/checks that are at complete variance with one another in the piano and in the temperament in particular, I cannot think of any.

Can you give me an example or two of such a case so that I am more enlightened and have the opportunity to think it through? Though I may never think it through and may need to ask someone else myself!
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012217 - 01/10/13 11:46 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Sorry Jeff, to answer, finding tests/checks that are at complete variance with one another in the piano and in the temperament in particular, I cannot think of any.

Can you give me an example or two of such a case so that I am more enlightened and have the opportunity to think it through? Though I may never think it through and may need to ask someone else myself!


Yes I can. I run across this often:

Take a large, old upright with the break around C3. The F3-F4 temperment is tuned and then expanded downward. As each octave is tuned the RBIs such as M3, M6, and M10 (when available) are checked. Everything is hunky dunky until crossing into the bass. Then all these RBIs want to beat faster than they do for the note above the break.

Well, you can make the RBIs more progressive by contracting the octave that spans the break and stretching the octaves above the break. This will make the 4ths and 5ths sound different across the berak, but since they beat slower it won't be so obvious when listening to chromatic checks.

Or you can expand the temperment with good sounding octaves and be assured that the 4ths and 5ths will be at thier best even though the M3s and M10s are not progressive.

However, if the temperment was expanded downward with 6:3 octaves, then you can expect the m3s and M6s to be at thier best even if the M3s P4s and P5s are not. The 6:3 octave test uses m3s and M6s.

Do you follow what I am saying even if you have not experienced this? It happens on shorter, older grands, too. The scaling for a "hockey stick" bridge is the likely culprit.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012259 - 01/10/13 01:10 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Ok, I hear you.

I suppose the fudge factor comes in here. 4th, 5th, m3, M3, M6, Octave, D8ve, 10th, 17th. I would try for the best compromise for the best sounding octave and SBI's and then move on. I would not be overly concerned with any particular size of octave and interval here in so much as making it fit into the overall bigger picture and sound as best as is possible to my ears!?

You know, thinking about it, and this is not a boast but just a thought that has come through my mind now as I am writing, I in general, and thankfully so, do not get call backs, so either I am doing something right, or maybe my clients know and realise that pianos are not perfect and what they are hearing is not unpleasant to them or of major concern to them.

Maybe, we should not be overly concerned if our clients are happy with our work.
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012268 - 01/10/13 01:30 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Mark:

Since tuning is not my livelyhood, more like a paid community service, I have the luxury of considering my own needs in the actually tuning process. I have an inherent need to understand things and find consistent ways of doing things. (This has served me well in my full time careers.)

Anyway, I had been perplexed when reading about tuning CM3s across breaks and not being able to have decent sounding octaves and SBIs when I tried it. After really studying the effects of iH, and learning to objectively listen to the tests and checks in my tunings, I have settled in on something that I understand and is consistent: pure twelfths. It meets my needs.

Even though I have changed how I tune over the past few years, and tuned differently for the same customers, I do not get call backs either. Tuners are usually much more discerning than thier customers. That is as it should be.

I do understand that the needs of other tuners are different. And so they would tune differently. smile
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012269 - 01/10/13 01:31 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I guess I agree with Mark, octave size test are useful to learn to hear differnt types of octaves may be, but in the end I totally stopped using them, while I focus on clean sounding octaves as one of the priorities.

there is some room to fudge in most intervals, sticking to an octave type may push the tuner to pass the moment the octave type have to change.
What amaze me is being able to tune by octaves with some even progression of FBI, I have always be instructed that it was not really possible, may be only the habit...


Edited by Kamin (01/10/13 01:31 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012272 - 01/10/13 01:37 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Mark:

Since tuning is not my livelyhood, more like a paid community service, I have the luxury of considering my own needs in the actually tuning process. I have an inherent need to understand things and find consistent ways of doing things. (This has served me well in my full time careers.)

Anyway, I had been perplexed when reading about tuning CM3s across breaks and not being able to have decent sounding octaves and SBIs when I tried it. After really studying the effects of iH, and learning to objectively listen to the tests and checks in my tunings, I have settled in on something that I understand and is consistent: pure twelfths. It meets my needs.

Even though I have changed how I tune over the past few years, and tuned differently for the same customers, I do not get call backs either. Tuners are usually much more discerning than thier customers. That is as it should be.

I do understand that the needs of other tuners are different. And so they would tune differently. smile


Sure enlarged twelve begin to sound strange, but when going thru the basses the 5ths can enlarge too much also. Any method allowing to have a standard is good, in the end..
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012280 - 01/10/13 01:59 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Jeff,

I appreciate you delving into it so much. You have the discipline and brain. That's great! As for me I am also still delving but at my own slow pace.

Are you willing to explain then in a bit more detail as to your procedure, say from E3 down, across the break and through the bi-chords?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012285 - 01/10/13 02:13 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Kamin
I guess I agree with Mark, octave size test are useful to learn to hear differnt types of octaves may be, but in the end I totally stopped using them, while I focus on clean sounding octaves as one of the priorities.

there is some room to fudge in most intervals, sticking to an octave type may push the tuner to pass the moment the octave type have to change.
What amaze me is being able to tune by octaves with some even progression of FBI, I have always be instructed that it was not really possible, may be only the habit...


"... sticking to an octave type may push the tuner to pass the moment the octave type have to change."

Exactly! I believe that if 12ths are used to tune, pure or tempered, the octave types will change when they should: wider with less iH and narrower with more iH; like a governor on a generator.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012289 - 01/10/13 02:30 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Jeff and Isaac, i see! Interesting!

So, if i may ask, what would be wrong or the difference in tuning 5ths down and acoss and regulating the 4th as compared to using 12ths?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012291 - 01/10/13 02:35 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Jeff,

I appreciate you delving into it so much. You have the discipline and brain. That's great! As for me I am also still delving but at my own slow pace.

Are you willing to explain then in a bit more detail as to your procedure, say from E3 down, across the break and through the bi-chords?


Well, first, I set a pure 12th D3-A4 temperment tuning fifths up and octaves down after A3, D4, E4, G3, E3 and G4 are tuned and adjusted. One test for a pure twelfth is the P5-P8 test. The 3:2 D3-A3 P5 beats the same as the 2:1 A3-A4 P8. So when the temperment is tuned, the fifths should be no slower than the A3-A4 2:1 partial match and the octaves should be no faster than the D3-A3 3:2 partial match.

The smaller the piano, the more pure the octaves and fifths. And the more pure an interval is, the more difficult it is to make them trully progressive. And some pinblock are not very friendly... Contiguously progressive fifth is really about my limit.

In reality, I just do the best I can. To tell the truth at these beatrates I mostly just hear a tonal change as they are tuned. I think the additional partial matches are involved. An evenly voiced piano helps.

Expanding the temperment I use a spanner to directly tune the 12th and then check the octave and various RBIs. The M6-M17 test is useful. F2-D3 beats the same as F2-A4 when the D3-A4 12th is pure.

I tune any and all wound strings differently. I do not trust any one partial to be true to the rest. Instead, I play the twelfth and an octave above the lower note at the same time and strive for the most resonance. Or on very challenging pianos the area that sounds the least-worst.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012293 - 01/10/13 02:41 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: UnrightTooner]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Exactly! I believe that if 12ths are used to tune, pure or tempered, the octave types will change when they should: wider with less iH and narrower with more iH; like a governor on a generator.


That's down to the f*(1+Bn^2)^0.5 formula for partials; less B more n, more B less n.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2012302 - 01/10/13 03:01 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Thanks Jeff! Food for thought!

How much of a difference is there between a 4:1 D8ve and a pure 12th?

And if one is tuning a pure 12th tuning in the treble and high treble, does this not increase the stretch more than say, a just 4:1 octave throughout the treble and high treble? or does this vary from piano to piano?

What do your octaves and double octaves sound like when tuning this way?
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012368 - 01/10/13 04:59 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Jeff and Isaac, i see! Interesting!

So, if i may ask, what would be wrong or the difference in tuning 5ths down and across and regulating the 4th as compared to using 12ths?


Quickly said I would said it is useful to take the 12ths as a parameter of the tuning; then this is probably the interval that have the most "give" (around "pure" also) Learning to listen to them is just another helpful tip , providing a fast way to listen to the double octave ( I often use an inverted min interval with the 12t h (17th double - twelve)

A 12th being and octave an a 5th it sort of show the level of tempering of both intervals (and octave at the piano could be "tempered" in my way of seeing things

However I believe that pure 12ths tend to break in when the piano is played, and finish tempered. I try to keep them tempered as if not the double octave beat begin to be noticed.

When all is tempered FBI can stay moderately noisy particularely M6, that are soon screaming, to me...

the 12th is used since a long time by ETDs because the 3d partial is the pitch tested in the mediums; then if you know it you can perceive the perfect smoothing of twelves; the defect come from not taking in account other partials enough (I talk of older RTC or SAT, in the medium range)


muddy, probably ....


Edited by Kamin (01/10/13 05:00 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012372 - 01/10/13 05:03 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Thanks Jeff! Food for thought!

How much of a difference is there between a 4:1 D8ve and a pure 12th?

And if one is tuning a pure 12th tuning in the treble and high treble, does this not increase the stretch more than say, a just 4:1 octave throughout the treble and high treble? or does this vary from piano to piano?

What do your octaves and double octaves sound like when tuning this way?


To me, yes
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012410 - 01/10/13 06:34 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Ok, I have been digging around and found some info with regards to 12ths tuning and temperament tuning.

The following is written by Jim Coleman,Snr, I think, "At G5, the 19th (C3-G5) also becomes available as a test. One will often find this interval to be slightly on the narrow side even though the 12th (C4-G5) test is pure. This is decision time again. If one prefers to have pure triple octaves eventually, it may be necessary to widen the 12ths slightly and slow down the narrow 19ths gradually. In doing this, one now forces the single octaves to be stretched even more (sometimes even more than 1bps) and the double octaves may be stretched up to 1bps.

By the time one gets to C6 the triple octave comes into play. If the 12ths have been kept pure, the double octave is stretched and the triple octave is slightly narrow. If one one wishes to have the triple octave pure, then the double octave will need to be stretched more, the 12ths will need to be widened, and the 19ths will need to be almost pure but on the narrow side.All of this of coarse will make the single octave stretched even more. Here again is a decision time. Does the tuner prefer pure triple octaves at the expense of the double octave and single octaves? What the overall desired effect? Outside of unison work this is a point where art enters..."

Don Mannino wrote some time ago on this forum, the following, " Extra wide octaves in the center of the piano cause the temperament area to sound brighter , more aggressive, less focussed perhaps, and more "tense". This is because the 3rds and 6ths are made to beat faster when the octaves are wide.
The 5ths are more pure than a normal stretch would give, but these are not as audible during complex music than the business of the 3rds and 6ths.

There are fine tuners at work today who regularly tune center octaves so that they are very, very wide and the 5ths are almost pure! So the old pythagorean comma gets put into the octave, instead of compromising all of the 5ths between! This is how the wide tuning in my seminar is done - I try to get the 5ths pure.

Narrow Octaves in the center of the piano tend to make a temperament area to sound more sweet and pure in tone, even though the 5ths will tend to beat faster than they might in a "normal" tuning.

The relative width of the octaves in the high treble also impacts the tone. Concert tunings are often stretched higher in the top octaves, as this can add brilliance and intensity to the top up there.

A more narrow octave in the treble area helps the piano to sing more, and 'bite' less, as the lower partials within the octaves set up sympathetic ringing that builds sustain. Some of the attack of the tone is quickly transferred to the octave above or below, reducing intensity and adding sustain...

So there is no one "correct" way to tune any octave..."


Edited by Mark Davis (01/10/13 06:40 PM)
Edit Reason: minor correction
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012526 - 01/10/13 11:05 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Withindale]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1651
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
The derivation is a couple of pages of high school algebra which I could post if someone really wants to see it.


Kees

I'd be interested, the back of my envelope soon ran out on this one. PM if you prefer.


OK, I put it in a pdf.

I have some more analysis (pershaps forthcoming) which shows that equal beating 4:2/6:3 can be used in the temperament octave (and will result in equal beating behaviour) but not beyond, as it will result in too fast beating 4:2 and 4:1. There the 4:2+ has to lean more towards 4:2 than 6:3. The 12th also seems to get wide.

Unrelated to my writeup, note that the default tuning curve in Tunelab has pure 6:3 octaves in the bass, and pure 4:1 double octaves in the treble, with a smooth transition in-between. In particular the 4:2 always becomes narrow in the higher octaves (around C6). A pure 12th tuning results in narrow 4:2 and wide 4:1.

Kees

Top
#2012534 - 01/10/13 11:39 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I still dont understand why the 2:1 is not considered as an octave wink
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012616 - 01/11/13 05:09 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: DoelKees]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1916
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
The derivation is a couple of pages of high school algebra which I could post if someone really wants to see it.


Kees

I'd be interested, the back of my envelope soon ran out on this one. PM if you prefer.


OK, I put it in a pdf.


Thank you, Kees, very clear. I'll have a proper look at it later.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2012635 - 01/11/13 07:27 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: DoelKees]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Thanks Jeff! Food for thought!

How much of a difference is there between a 4:1 D8ve and a pure 12th?

...


Hah! It depends on the width of the implied 4th! When you carefully consider what the tests are for the P12, the P15 and the implied P4 you should realize that if the P4 is pure, the P12 and the P15 can also be pure. The algebraic difference of the beatrates of the P12 and the P15 equal the beatrate of the implied P4. This is only true when the common note is on top.

Let me add this. One more little known things about the effects of iH on beatrates is that the beatrate of P4 does not double each octave. It can take a couple of octaves to double. So the beat difference between P12s and P15s does not increase much toward the treble.

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
...

And if one is tuning a pure 12th tuning in the treble and high treble, does this not increase the stretch more than say, a just 4:1 octave throughout the treble and high treble? or does this vary from piano to piano?

...


Kees explained it well:


Originally Posted By: DoelKees
...

Unrelated to my writeup, note that the default tuning curve in Tunelab has pure 6:3 octaves in the bass, and pure 4:1 double octaves in the treble, with a smooth transition in-between. In particular the 4:2 always becomes narrow in the higher octaves (around C6). A pure 12th tuning results in narrow 4:2 and wide 4:1.

Kees


Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
...

What do your octaves and double octaves sound like when tuning this way?


As you go up the treble, a beat can be detected, but is not obvious unless the temperment is not strictly equal. It can be looked at as a side benefit. Since you are closer to the edge of acceptable stretch, a note that is a little off an octave below the P12 that is being tuned will not sound right when listening to the octave.

I used to tune the treble without as much stretch and have smoother sounding octaves and 15ths, but the top octaves just didn't sound like they were at the right pitch when music that uses a great deal of the keyboard is played. I tried stretching by tuning wide octaves but my results were sometimes, ahem, "haphazard." Again, no complaints from customers, but I did not like the inconsistencies. So like the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, pure octaves was not enough, stretched octaves was too much, but pure 12ths was just right.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012661 - 01/11/13 09:00 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Mark Davis Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 658
Thanks for explaining Jeff
_________________________
Mark Davis
Piano Tuner & Technician

Top
#2012783 - 01/11/13 12:56 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
@Jeff : " It depends on the width of the implied 4th! When you carefully consider what the tests are for the P12, the P15 and the implied P4 you should realize that if the P4 is pure, the P12 and the P15 can also be pure. The algebraic difference of the beatrates of the P12 and the P15 equal the beatrate of the implied P4. "

something wrong in your reasoning, to me, or works only in absence of iH,

Seem to me that the definition of "pure" is what bothers me.
a 4:2 octave to me, imply yet some stretch (as a 2:1 in the end) . Cordier (pure 5th tuning ) agreed in the end that the good term is "acoustically pure" as this is a slightly different concept, implying more than the simple 3:1 4:1 or 2:1 relation.



Edited by Kamin (01/11/13 01:05 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012844 - 01/11/13 02:10 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Isaac:

There are probably others scratching their heads on this one, too. It is a relationship that Mark C. works with.

Consider these three notes: A3, D4 and A5. There are three intervals possible: the A3-D4 P4, the D4-A5 P12 and the A3-A5 P15.

Consider a normal situation where A3-D4 P4 is 1bps wide. This means the fourth partial of A3 is at 880hz and the third partial of D4 is at 881hz. (These are approximate non-iH theoretical pitches but it does not matter. 1 bps wide is 1 bps wide regardless of the actual hz involved.) When A5 is tuned, if it is at 880hz the result is a pure P15 and a narrow P12, if it is at 881hz the result is a wide P15 and a pure P12, and if it is at 880.5hz the result is a wide P15 and a narrow P12 that beat at the same speed. Regardless of where A5 is tuned, the algebraic difference of the beatrates (+ for wide, - for narrow) will equal the beatrate of the implied P4. They could even both be wide or narrow: If A5 = 886hz then (+6bps) – (+ 5bps) = + 1bps.

Now consider an abnormal situation where A3-D4 P4 is pure. Both the fourth partial of A3 and the third partial of D4 are at 880hz. If A5 is tuned to 880hz, both the P12 and the P15 will be pure.

Using F3 as the standard test note for these intervals may make it easier to understand… or not!

This is why I say that difference between the P12 and P15 depends on the implied P4.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2012884 - 01/11/13 02:56 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Yes
I agree if this is based on a non stretched scale, of course.

But not likely to happen.

The advantage we have when tuning is that the high iH slow the beats of 4ths . that is what allows the octave to be enlarged without 4th being too noisy.

So "acoustically" a stretched 4th may sound pure, if you see what I mean, and a tempered 5th or 12th as well

When tuning , I consider all intervals as simple additions or substractions, so I may be reasoning on a no IH based logic, I agree, but this is based to what is perceived, for instance, beats are evaluated without locating them at a particular level, as if I was using pure frequencies.



Edited by Kamin (01/11/13 03:01 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2012899 - 01/11/13 03:14 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Jeff, if you stick to pure 12th you are providing a fundation for the high treble, the tuning is in fact straight and sound just in the two modes, arpeggios and octaves.

Just for fun try to locate the exact pitch of the notes in the 5-6th octave region just based on the resonant spot obtained from the 12th, and the double.

May be you will notice that your note have a raise in color at some point.

When tested you possibly will find an equilibrium between the 15th and the double octave (same beat speed)

I will not promise it works anytime but it works.

I am advantaged with so called "perfect pitch" that allow me to place the note more or less well once I have heard the others (and also with the slow motion technique, hence the habit to master progressive slow pitch changes at a a slow speed)

the minor chord inversion (M3+4th) played with the double octave is supposed to stay quiet enough, active but not noisy nor acid.

May be the resonant spot lower the perception of the speed of the M3 and the 6th played together...

When the tuning is good, that chord is showing the wanted pitch of the double octave as a laser light .

I also like the fact that the tuning is lively.
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2014172 - 01/14/13 12:48 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
rxd Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 1703
Loc: London, England
Gentlemen,

Perhaps I'm missing something.

Are we all on the same page? Are we all speaking of tuning from completed unisons or are some speaking of tuning a piano that has a temperament strip in tha whole piano, thus tuning and refering to and from only single strings?

That makes a huge difference on the level this discussion is at.

I ask because there seems to be some crossed wires here.
_________________________
Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England.
"in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.

Eschew obfuscation.



Top
#2014234 - 01/14/13 04:59 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
I understand that this is not really clear, as we use differnt methods to get to the final result.

For some the final result imply an acoustically just 12th, for others a tempered one.

I believe we talk of the final result in any case. to obtain it I have to tune "enlarged" as I use a strip mute up to c6 and there is enough lowering when tuning the unison to take it in account.

When I was tuning unison as I go the same process did apply all new notes where tuned a little high, that is why I am not considering I am doing something "new" doing so.



Edited by Kamin (01/14/13 05:01 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2014264 - 01/14/13 07:18 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
All:

Let me try to make something clear. If a 12th is tuned pure, the 15th will beat the same speed as the implied 4th. And when a 15th is tuned pure the 12th will beat the same speed as the implied 4th. Of course this only pertains to when the common note is on top. It cannot be any other way. Inharmonicity and temperment strips have nothing to do with it.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2014373 - 01/14/13 11:29 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Hi I try to understand (it may be quite simple)

The partials involved in the 4th and the double octave are not the same if you talk of a 4th from the upper note)

When balancing 15th and 12th, the 12th is small and the double is large, if I enlarge the 12th, the double is even larger (top note not changing).

Then that larger 15 and tempered 12th provide some limits, the other intervals having the same partial ringing are nicely finding their place within. (M3, M6, 17th...)



Edited by Kamin (01/14/13 11:30 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2014377 - 01/14/13 11:36 AM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Isaac:

I maen when the common note of the 12th and 15th are the top note. Like A3-A5 15th and D4-A5 12th with the "implied" 4th being A3-D4.

Did you read my last post???
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2014399 - 01/14/13 12:11 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7157
Loc: France
Sorry, well, in that case I suppose it is true ! the 4th being complementary of the twelve at the double octave level.

What I dont get is the influence of the other partials (not the main one) on the final beat speed perceived.



Edited by Kamin (01/14/13 12:28 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2014490 - 01/14/13 02:42 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Olek]
UnrightTooner Online   content
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4906
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: Kamin
Sorry, well, in that case I suppose it is true ! the 4th being complementary of the twelve at the double octave level.

What I dont get is the influence of the other partials (not the main one) on the final beat speed perceived.



The saying we use around here is "It all depends on how you hold your tongue."

http://www.allposters.co.uk/-sp/Young-Bo...s_i3834794_.htm
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2014522 - 01/14/13 04:06 PM Re: Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves [Re: Mark Davis]
Jerry Groot RPT Offline
6000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/07/07
Posts: 6828
Loc: Grand Rapids Michigan
I just bit mine!!!! It hoiets!
_________________________
Jerry Groot RPT
Piano Technicians Guild
Grand Rapids, Michigan
www.grootpiano.com

We love to play BF2.

Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Moderator:  Piano World 
What's Hot!!
> Robin Spielberg Playing in Maine! <
-------------------
75,000 Members and Growing!
-------------------
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler Pianos
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
Who's Online
145 registered (accordeur, ajames, AndresD, Almaviva, 38 invisible), 1851 Guests and 22 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
75479 Members
42 Forums
156060 Topics
2291607 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Remembering what to play
by kipale
36 minutes 33 seconds ago
Time to change teacher?
by AndresD
Today at 09:34 AM
Adjusting Sound During Restringing
by BillJZ
Today at 09:05 AM
My fingers know what my brain has forgotten
by PatrickBl
Yesterday at 08:30 PM
Fully-Rebuilt Pianos Versus New Pianos
by Paul678
Yesterday at 08:12 PM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
| Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission