Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum A bit of Advice needed . .

I'm at 51 pianos and find that as I tune more and more I get pickier and pickier. I find myself tuning a unison just right, trying to get that last little wabble straightened out. I'm not sure if the normal customer could perceive it but I can.

During the temperament I can usually figure out what it's going to take to get the unisons right. Some pianos go sharp and then right into pitch easily and others, I find, require a little pounding which I prefer to do as little as possible outside of a medium strength strike after the string sets.

About 10% of the keys go beautifully into unison. Others require some tinkering on my part and it might be I am still mastering the hammer ear coordination and it may be the piano as well.

Thanks all, an informative discussion as always

I've been reading through Max's thread and have learned a lot. Its fun to have had just enough time on the hammer that I can start to identify some of the things I was feeling and start to identify whats going on. The whole top of the pin vs. bottom of the pin thing was mind blowing

At this point the discussion of unisons is strictly of academic interest to me. For a beginning tuner I definitely see the value of being able to set the unisons perfectly still to develop the ability to hear that, and to learn how to work the hammer so that they stay there. It would seem that tuning unisons any other way at this stage would just muddle the ability to learn those lessons whether they might seem to sound better or not. The finer points Isaac mentions are still way beyond my abilities to hear or control.

Very much agreed Supply, at this stage I would be quite pleased to be able to consistently produce boring, lifeless stable tunings I like to think I am getting there, at least on aural unisons while still being dependent on tunelab to set the temperament and stretch. I still have a hard time hearing the beats in the fundamentals and intervals, but at least on unisons the higher partials blare at me like sirens. It might take me about 4 hours, but usually I can shut them all up

Someday when I'm a little farther along and a little braver I'll start a thread and post a recording for the wolves to eviscerate

Rob

Well, here you are, gentlemen. A selection of not too brilliantly tuned notes. Your thoughts? (ignore the motorbikes if you`re not into that. Those machines are all highly tuned . . .)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkq71N1sGGA

Sounds like a Roland digital to me.

I'm intrigued by the notion that a still unison should somehow sound flat. Can anyone explain this phenomenon?

Also, rxd wrote:



Perhaps my sinusitis is not only blocking my ears, but also my brain. But try as I may, I keep missing how a M3-M10-M17 test would show up a flat unison. rxd, could you enlighten me?

There is something that has become known as the "Virgil Effect", where a three-string unison will sound lower than the initially tuned string. There is disagreement among techs about whether or not this exists, and if it does, how relevant it is to tuning. You can read about it in the November 1998 issue of the PTG Journal. You could probably even do an advanced search on PW, as I'm sure it's been discussed before.

Is it true that a perfectly tuned unison has a shorter sustain?

I know there's a name for this effect but I forgot what it is. Perhaps beethoven knows.

Let me help you discover for yourself.
When you have tuned a piano, play a major third somewhere in the temperament octave. Then play a tenth based on the same lower note. What similarity do you notice about their beat rates?. Now ask yourself your question again. You will find the 17th behaves the same way.

I interpret rxd's comment to be that a unison may shift flat, for various reasons, after the first string is tuned and when the other strings in the unison are brought up to pitch. The maj 3rd, 10th, 17th test can be used to test if that happened. This is not the same as a claimed sensation of flatness, which I don't experience, when a unison is tuned pure.

I have not found the sustain to be shorter except on a piano that has some faulty notes These faults can be usually cured quickly with some minor tone regulation.

Perhaps this need to artificially prolong the length of a note by tuning it differently comes from tuners with no knowledge of tone regulation thus compounding the fault on an already faulty piano. A skilled voicer will know immediately if the fault is in the stringing or hammer. sometimes thick dust on the bridge, particularly on an upright, can hamper sustain but on a newer piano it is usually the resilience of the hammer or the stringing.

Some notes need some adjustment to increase the sustain before or after they are fine tuned.

A single prick with a needle in the right place always helps. I always keep one with me.

It can be, my sentiment is that we maintain the pitch high , pushing the tone toward the partials, when tuning the 2 other strings to avoid that.
If unisons are tuned dull then the sound is less clear.

Not less long but allowing less dynamics in my opinion, which is the same thing in the end.


That play with the phase came from Japan

Sorry for what youy wrote RXD, I certainly dont remùind having disclosed any personal exchange, if I did it was not volontarely (I am very attentive to that usually, so your remark bothers me)

When I talk of something said by someone I say who (cite the source) and I don't use things that are in the personal circle usually.


If an unison is tuned pure, it is nicely sounding, the same if it is "perfectly tuned"

I am of the opinion that unisons should be tuned as pure as possible. I believe that the color and "life" to the sound of a piano have more to do with the temperament and voicing of the hammers. That is one reason why I get bored with the sound of a piano tuned in ET. You might try experimenting with different temperaments. I personally like the EBVT3. It really opens up the sound of the piano. Different keys will have different personalities. You just might be surprised at what you hear.

Alas, I've just tuned a piano on Saturday, but will only return to it in March with a re-glued damper head (the owners are out for a few weeks).

But in my (limited) experience, the M3, M10 and M17 with a common lower note have very similar beat rates. (If anything, I seem to find that they increase slightly, but that might be my limited tuning skill.)

So, I presume that your test for a flat unison looks as follows:
1) Use the test unison as the top note of a M10.
2) Compare the beat rate of this M10 with that of a M3 and M17 using the same lower note, i.e. check whether the test unison slots neatly half-way into the double octave.
3) If the M3 and M17 both beat faster than the M10, the test unison has slipped flat.

Am I on the right track?

Yes.

If you compare intervals like that using a single string (by muting out the rest) against more than one string and the beat rates change, you know the unison is off.

Beat rates cannot be precisely evaluated , they ony can be compared, and they wave in speed, so a global listening is better than being too picky on them.

Comparaison between single strings and unison beat rates is even more uneasy. But it is easy to compare the tone and the consonance in the matched partials at large just activity and spectra enrichment is enough, hopefuly. (once an octave is tuned the FBI are tested in case of doubt, usualy consonance is enough to keep consistence in my opinion)

I forget to say, I find difficult to listen and analyse other tuners unisons (deconstruct them) First I must be in front of the piano (recordings give an idea of the shape of the envelope but can be misleading) , second the main thing I notice is how much attack is allowed, which is he only parameter that can be adressed in the end.

Some of my colleagues exactly think the same, saying "I prefer a bit more of attack" for instance (more percussion).

Then , when one is practically constructing tone he obviously use all means availeable, as the sound return from the room, and a deconstruction of the spectra.

A tuner that does not create tone is just missing the point, but, I agree that at some point unisons are simple and so evident any remaining problem is due to voicing (old strings, soundboard tiredness ,etc;)

The instrument the place and the pianist/music dictates what kind of tone is expected.

A light regulation tweak may be enough to change the emphasis on the attack or on the sustain.

In "Pianomania" the tuners is a little exagerating, asking what kind of tone projection Pierre Laurent Aymard wish ? an intimate enclosed tone or a full projecting tone, He said that so to show what a tuner can eventually do, I am not sure it is a question having so much importance for the pianist before a concert.
But PL Aymard rightly send the ball back to the sender bu answering "both" ! (and I give him right in that case)

Anyway, a high level professional pianist can play on all kind of pianos, and will adapt his playing so to be in phase with the instrument. ATworst even uneveness of tone is adresses, after a few rehearseal moments , the mental map is engraved.

Any remaining problem is then asked for correction (and this is really rare unless in recording studios, that the pianist ask for some voicing or a few notes corrections, most of the time he does not even meet the tuner, unless that last is asked to stay so sometime a post it, but concert grands are kept at concert level so they can be choosed before the concert)

the range of "tone opening" among tuners is in my opinion quite large. but the process occur between fundamental and the remaining spectra.