Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Should There Be A Standard?

Yes, rxd, perhaps you are right but... did you find that humorous? Hmmm..., this is also why I would like to meet you, you could help me get the right feeling, when it comes to anglophony (not sure this word existed). :-)

Anyway, what I hear there... is a sort of rejection for something (a standard) that may be a threat for aural tuners "variations", making tuners obliged to work on the basis of "calculation".

Aural techs would have to "learn how to tune all over again", and the others may well dump their favorite ETD... yes, how humorous... :-)

And we, now trainers... could "...train all the piano players..." and, very humorous, "don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning...."...

Yes, now I find all that somehow humorous but, I don't know, do you too hear some iH? :-)

...snowflakes...

Before this thread melts, I would like to add a few words.

Ron wrote: ..."Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.
Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle"...

Firstly, a standard does not necessarely need to be "electronic", meaning that "aural tuning" variations don't call for a "non-aural" standard; "variations" - if anything - call for arguments, and even the best argument would have to pass a test based on intonation and, as far as I am concerned, on logics.

Yes, a standard is meant to be the same all over, as it indicates the most convenient solution, any other messy tuning being available there, at hand.

Aural tuners do not need to "...run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again...", as they can already control the tuning lever and beats, IMO they only need to be willing to share the standard; and ETD tuners could test and set their favorite ETD, have The standard available together with any other setting, at their convenience.

And there would be no point in training "..piano players to only expect.." one kind of tuning, because it would still depend on the execution, and because the "piano player" (and not only the piano player) is ready and happy to appreciate a better "..sounding way of tuning", say... The standard.

Alfredo

There has been a standard for a very long time. Just ask the PTG.

As much as I know, it is ET.

Why?

Just ask those in the PTG who are higher up the ladder than those who are in the PTG that post here on a regular basis.

I suppose it may have something to do with, that there is no better standard.

Is it not very interesting that the PTG uses ET to evaluate one and at the same time it's members poo poo it.

It is like saying, this is the standard you must have in order to drive a car and once you have attained to it, whatever you do, just never drive according to that standard ever again. You idiot!

This sounds like a house divided and hypocrisy at its best.

But then again, all the shouting does come from a very small quarter that pretends to be a force to be reckoned with.

Chris, there are also people that never learned to tune aurally, that way they miss something they are not even aware of.

Then strategies develop to be expert in something else. That is human.

One great thing about the Internet is that we can all choose the extent to which we interact with it.

Alfredo,

There are many kinds of humour. I perceived Rons' post to have an element of what we call "tongue in cheek" humour.

For you to pedantically and methodically rummage through it looking for a belly laugh in each sentence I find kinda funny too.

Now, let's hear a big belly laugh from all the men with big bellies............ and now a little titter from...,,

Greetings,
The PTG uses ET as a benchmark. It is the standard because it is the most easily measured by objective means. It is very much like the barber college using a "regular man's haircut" as a standard to be met before graduating. There are those for whom that is enough,and they find enough customers that are willing to pay for the standard. I remember barbers, before they became "stylists", who denigrated all the more modern, longer, styles. They gradually changed to follow the money, or got left behind, all the while clinging to their "standard" and finding fault with the world for not standing still for them. I know a watch repairman who became bitter at the electronic watch makers, accusing them of throwing "quality" out the window.

The hacked, aural, ET's of the average tuner in the 20th century, at least the ones I examined, were farther from ET than a carefully tuned Victorian temperament. The advent of the machines, and the upgraded PTG tests, are keeping those hack tuners out of the organization. Yes, there are members that are certified as RPT but still do poor work, but the largest percent of low quality work I have seen has been done by non-members.

As far as the PTG embracing a standard that members reject, this is not hypocrisy, it is an organization demonstrating flexibility. We don't demand that tuners tune a certain way, we demand that they demonstrate that they can accurately tune the simplest, commercially feasible, temperament. Every RPT(excepting some older, constantly fewer, members that were grandfathered), has shown to his peers that they can tune within a defined window of accuracy. ET is the perfect target for this, disallowing taste and personal preference. That is why it is used, not because of any esthetic considerations.

It is really easy to find fault with an organization from outside, but impossible to make any changes for the better from there. It is more difficult to pass the standards to join, and work to change it from within, but that is what many of us do. I will always question the motives given by people for not joining a professional trade organization, particularly when it is the only peer review that is available to us, and it is by peer review that we make the most improvement in our work.
If a tech believes that they are going to attain mastery of the craft working on their own, they are dreaming. The sum total of experience available to any PTG member is so far greater than what we can expose ourselves to on our own, that the game is rigged against the independent from the get-go.
In our chapter, the associates know that they will begin to get referrals from me and others when they are RPT's. If a tech can't pass such simple, basic, tests, I am not going to risk my name and reputation( which is worth something), referring customers to them. It doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a temperament is used.
Regards,

rxd,

Enjoy interacting, no probs, and If I need an Editor I will let you know. Here I hope we talk about piano tuning and standard.

Regards, a.c.
.

Thanks for your reply Ed.

You are one of a few people that I appreciate in the "piano technology world", and I also do believe that you are someone who has attained to a high level of expertise too.

However there is much in your reply that I do not agree with.



So you are admitting that ET it is a good standard to have because it is objective?

You have opened my eyes to the well temperament scenario now! It is subjective. Nice world to live in. Room for a lot of errors and on top of that one can get away with an inferior tuning and call it well!

How does one begin to measure what is not easily measurable and subjective?



Yes, I hear you, but let's be honest with each other, we know that there are chancers out there and they are not tuners. We also know that there are folks who are not apart of the PTG, willingly so, and who are high end tuner techs.

The problem is this ego thing of some PTG members in that that they do as you are doing now, lumping all those tuners who are not apart of the PTG in to the same lump as "the hack tuners". This is a generalistion that is unecessary and you folks should know better than to employ such tactics.


So, what I am getting from your post so far and the above quote, is this, 1. ET is the most easily measured temperament by objective means, 2. That HT's are purely subjective and not easily measured, and, 3. That HT is a personal preferance and taste.

It is all very well to harp on reverse well, but what I still have not heard from the HT proponents is, when you folks do get your temperament wrong, tuning some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you not say?

There is a thundering silence on this. I suppose all is well!

Let's just keep ETD's out of this for the moment.



I hear you, but this is also very subjective and narrow?

I know, without a doubt, that there are many, many people out there in the world, doctors, lawyers, tuners, etc.. even an American president, even a South African president, who have cheated, and have not earned their way, but, "have got into the Orginisation".

Once again, there are many people out there in the world who are self taught and extremely brilliant and capable in their field. One does not need an orginisation, however, being in one can have it's benefits, I am sure.

I for one, do not need an orginisation to survive.

Regards,

Now, let me get this right, on the one hand ET is supposed to be so difficult to tune and on the other, it is easy?

So which one is it folks?

Warning! Many insurgents may try to use their AK47's on this F22A Raptor!

I found the following in the PTG journal, August 1988, written by Rick Baldassin,

"There were a couple of letters this month in response to the June issue. The first was from Robert Bays, of Atlanta, GA. Robert writes:

"I enjoyed reading your article on "Setting the Temperament” in the June Journal. I was interested to note that for many years now I have been following a procedure similar to (but at the same time very different from) yours and Don Foli’s. For all pianos except those which must have equal temperament for one reason or another, I use the Marpurg "I" temperament, which I tune by setting up the chain of thirds F3-A3-C#4-F4, then tuning perfect fifths and fourths from them.

I am sure you are well acquainted with the Marpurg, which ends up with a series of lovely equal-tempered Major Thirds. Except for those based on F#, A#, and D, all minor triads have equal beating major and minor thirds. The only discordant fifths and fourths are F# -C#, F-A# -F, and A-D. I have had excellent results with this temperament, having never had a complaint, and having had a number of special compliments..."

Thank you for your letter. I became acquainted with the Marpurg “I” temperament when I was a student in piano technology school. In school, we began by first learning to tune unisons, then various pure intervals, and finally various temperaments. Before we learned equal temperament, we were taught several other temperaments, such as mean-tone, Well Temperament, and the Marpurg “I” temperament. These were taught to us more as learning tools than for their historical significance, though this was not overlooked.

My teacher, Merrill Cox, felt that it would be easier for us at first to tune temperaments which had several pure intervals. Once we had learned to tune unisons without beats, we could train ourselves to hear intervals without beats. The mean-tone temperaments served well for this. Once we had mastered the mean-tone temperaments, we moved on to the Well Temperament, which was similar to the mean-tone temperaments, but introduced the concept of “tempering” intervals so that the instrument could be played in all of the keys, unlike the mean-tone temperaments.

The Marpurg “I” temperament was one which was studied as we neared our study of equal temperament, as it displayed the concept of tempering of Major Thirds.

Finally, we learned equal temperament which included tempering of all the intervals. In my daily practice, I have call only to tune in equal temperament, so I am not as familiar with several of the historical temperaments as others may be. I do recall that as unequal temperaments go, the Marpurg “I” is fairly close to equal temperament. We probably have all tuned it by accident while attempting equal temperament."

http://www.bruceduffie.com/mohr.html

Piano Technician Franz Mohr

A Conversation with Bruce Duffie

BD: Does it bother you when you see a technician, or someone trying to tune a piano, who is using a little electronic strobe?

FM: [Becoming a bit agitated] Oh, absolutely! Absolutely! I go quite mad, although many, many use it. There’s nothing wrong with the machine itself. The machine is perfect, but to translate what the machine tells you into the practical tuning is an entirely different story. Unless you learn to use your hearing — which comes in combination with your touch, with your feeling in your fingers, the touch of the tuning hammer — unless it comes through hearing into the tuning hammer to set the tuning pin, you will never, ever get this kind of tuning into a piano.

BD: Why?

FM: Because the machine may tell you exactly if the pitch is right. It’s right on, so you take your tuning hammer off from that tuning pin and you go to the next tuning pin. But it’s already out because you have never really set it. Looking at that machine might improve your eyesight, but certainly not your hearing because you rely on your eyes and not on your hearing. When I check somebody out to see if he has hearing for tuning, what I usually do is let him tune unison to see if he hears octaves and if he can put a unison in where one string is out. You immediately can see that.

BD: But you’ve got to be listening in equal temperament. You can’t be listening in perfect intervals.

FM: You cannot tune any interval pure, not a fifth or fourth. You cannot do it. You have to temper. That’s why we call it temperament! It has to fit in through the whole scale, through the whole circle of fifths. We know about historic temperaments and all this. They’re all very nice to know about, but they do not work for our modern piano.

BD: Would you tune differently if the concert was just the Goldberg Variations, as opposed to an all-modern program of Schoenberg and Webern?

FM: No I wouldn’t, nor have I ever been requested to tune any different temperament! Never, ever!

To many of the greatest pianists of our time, one man was critically important: Franz Mohr, former Chief Concert Technician of Steinway & Sons for more than a quarter of a century...

And he only tuned ET!

I agree with Ed Foote on this.

Alfredo, I'm glad that you desire to delineate what creates a great ET mathematically with your CHAS approach. However, it seems your only motive is to sell your approach and inject this into every thread that might, even peripherally, accept it.

I don't think a 'standard' needs to be made beyond what already is. In fact, it shouldn't. Ed delineated clearly how standard ET is used in the PTG to act as a test that can be clearly defined and tuned to.

What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving.

I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model. Every ideal model is unique.

According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument.

In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with.

I ask the question again. I think this is probably the 4th time on this forum that I have asked this and have not got a satisfactory answer.

When you HT proponents get your temperament wrong, or tune some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you just keep quiet and not say anything?

Is it not the subjectivity that is so attractive about tuning HT's? There is a large room for movement, flowing from one to another with many variations, in so much that, whatever one tunes, when one is tuning an HT, you just can't go wrong, all is well!?

Isn't it great to be able to wallow in such a big shallow pool!? What a standard?

What standard? Which standard? Who's standard?

Tunewerk,

I do not think we need to agree on "why" we write in this Forum and on what is peripheral. And I am not (here) into "selling" my approach, but offering it for free.

I think that, "beyond what already is", representing a new approach may help young tuners to focus on aural tuning targets, and I try to delineate clearly how the 12 or 16 notes required for tuning the first ET are not enough, not suitable for tuning a piano as a whole. For this reason I think that the PTG's test, although "clearly defined", is far from referencing/ensuring a reliable standard.

You wrote: ...What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving."...

To me, your words sound like poetry out of place. During my own research I tried to be lucid (perhaps you know how beats can keep you on earth), that is what makes me feel vibrant and free.

..."I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model."...

I hope you can solve your problem.

..."Every ideal model is unique."...

I agree.

..."According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument."...

Why do you mention "a great aural tuner", are you a great aural tuner? How do you aim at "maximum resonance of the instrument", is that in force of 12 root of two? Or your free artistry?

..."In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with."...

If you manage to find your answer, all the better. For the time being, I hope you do not mind if I keep on sharing with others.
.

This is what I get from every discussion of UT(HT) vs. ET that I've read here. To add, when asked, okay, "If not ET, then *which* UT?" never a straight answer.

Let's go to that PTG test. If not ET, which UT should be used for the test, and how would it be measured?

From what I heard on the video Bill Bremmer posted earlier, besides the too-sharp D#, I have to say, I did not like what I heard.

But then, I find beauty in symmetry...

I'll answer this here.

Historical temperaments in their intention were not subjective. They were very specific in their instruction. Additionally, the theory of equal temperament was known during the time that they were developed!

Each had a design for modulation through the circle of 5ths. They very carefully played with shifting of tone color among the keys on the lower inharmonicity instruments of the time.

Now, no one today would probably have an ear for determining what is wrong with an historical temperament - you are right - because we are only educated to know what equal temperament sounds like. So what would pass as an historical temperament today, might very well have a poor, undefined quality.

Owen Jorgensen notes that the first beat frequencies for organ tuning in equal temperament were published in 1810. It was published by a mathematician and actually meant as a joke - signed by 'Musicus Ignoramus'. They couldn't believe that a musician would actually tolerate a C-E beat speed that fast. This is how the tastes were at the time (and lower inharmonicity instruments contributed to those tastes).



I agree with this part, Alfredo, partly. I think a model that extends further is good and necessary to a deeper understanding of tuning - and to a higher quality in tuning. I also agree with you that aural targets are discrete and not sliding - as tuning machines define them.

However, you do not understand the PTG test if you think that it is not a reliable standard. It is very clear in its defined form, to weed out people who cannot tune to a standard. It is not the finest, most elevated form of equal temperament, but it is a standard.

The PTG test is based on a very conservative form of equal temperament, biasing beat speeds over musicality, because beat speeds can be measured.

Where I live, the "Standard" is often anything but ET. The dealer I do about half of my work for and provides instruments for public performance venues insists that no piano from his dealership ever be tuned in ET. Plain and simple.

What gets me are not those who truly can and do tune ET, it is those who claim to only tune ET but instead only offer Reverse Well. If you ask me, it was the attempt to impose the very universal standard you have in mind that unintentionally lead to far more tuners tuning Reverse Well than actual ET.

I would like to see what would happen if someone tried to tune a piano so that it matched perfectly with one of those tuned percussion instruments. Those would be perfect ET, wouldn't they? So go ahead and match the piano pitch by pitch to one of them and see what happens.