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

You seem to be correct. Here's a mixdown of the two EG# M3's an octave apart:
http://persianney.com/misc/container2.html

Kees

DoelKees, may I ask.....how are you arriving at 1 decimal place analasis of beat rates?

Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards

Kees:

You are doing a great service to us all with your analyses. THANK YOU.

Everyone involved with this Topic is probably getting something a little different out of it. I am getting a number of different new perspectives.

One I want to mention is how amazing it is to me that some tuners do not believe that most scaling breaks makes it impossible to have consistent octaves and fifths, and have progressive M3s. Maybe it depends the discernment of RBI progression that the tuner has...

Another that has been confirmed in my mind is that even if it is possible to tune trully progressive M3s & M6s, it isn't practical. Progressive CM3s, with exceptions, yes. Progressive M3s and M6s, no.

But what is the limiting factor? Discernment? Hammer technique? Piano physics? Mental, emotional, physical fatigue? Probably any or all of these in any given tuning session.

String leveling, hammer mating, false strings, crown/strike point shape, etc...

I have to admit that when notes sound brighter, I tend to percieve the beatrate to be faster. I have to be careful.

Jeff, one thing that I know that you have often brought out here on PW is, the real world of piano tuning for the "Trench piano tuner" on the "Brute piano.

Though there is a standard that may be executed with fairly good precision on a high end piano, or on the PTG exam piano, this is not real world scenario for many of us.

So we need to view the standard in the light of differing circumstances, quality of piano and the over all condition of the piano in question.

Then have the standard in view, tune the piano as best as we can, and move on.

As you and others have said so often, there are other things to do apart from tuning on our customers pianos (if they will allow us).

Those are so far off that it makes me suspicious of the recording.

Others should have noticed the problem.

BDB:

Could you mention what you noticed? For evaulating octaves from beatrates I compared the m3s to M6s for the 6:3 octave. Were you looking at the M3s and octave apart for variations? I think it is interesting that, once again, the beatrates of the M3s less than double per octave.

Anyway, I don't think it is the recording. G#4 was recorded three different times as part of different intervals. Each time it shows to be low in pitch.

Yes, the beat rates should be very close to double per octave.

What do you suspect of the recording? I'm not aware of any recording technique that changes frequency, except perhaps Edison's old cylinders. Or perhaps Phil was cycling while recording.

Kees

Hi All.

Hi Kees,

You wrote: ..."I'm probably wasting my time by responding, but since we have been considering progressive M3/6 as a possible standard for ET, don't you think determining if this standard is practical by examining if anyone can actually tune to this level of accuracy is on-topic in this thread?"...

Well, my answer is yes and no. IMO "...examining if anyone can actually tune to that level of accuracy.." (here) may be misleading, due to the premises and perhaps the method.

As a survey or an inquiry, let's imagine two possibilities:

p1- Nobody here is able to provide progressive M3/6;

p2- Some do, some don't.

To make it short, (IMO) in both cases we would remain with a handful of flies, firstly because p1- would not include all tuners on earth, secondly because we do not happen to be able to share a practice that is (at once) adherent to a theoretical model, therefore I do/should not expect "theory (12 root of two) and practice" to agree.

And it sounds like you/we are talking about a "standard" that today cannot represent our actual tunings, in that it refers only to one octave (or little more) and leaves behind SBI's and larger intervals, like 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths. In this sense, the progressive M3/6 proposal appears to be anachronistic, and p2- meaningless.

On the other hand, I perfectly understand that you would like to "see" the so called ET(?) under those evidencies and circumstances, and I would like to make a point:

M3/6 in the temperament octave can be progressive (in my experience), but this - beyond what I wrote above - is the type of thing that perhaps most aural tuners (one way or another) would consider as being "academic"(?). If this is true, you might be asking for something in the wrong place. Hope this explains why I was talking about noise.

Please note, I do believe that your analysis can be very significant, in fact once we manage to elaborate on a reliable and practicable model, I think such a tool will make a big difference.

Regards, a.c.
.

I tune from a ladder of 3rds, C#3F3A3C#4F4A4, placing the 4ths and 5ths between each octave, F#3G#3A#3C4D4E4 then filling in D#, B and G from what's there. I refine each placement using the 3rds progression, and check with 6ths and m3rds.

That attempt obviously isn't very good, BDB is right about the octaves being bad - the initial ladder of 3rds is wrong, so there's no hope for that temperament! I did some corrections at the end of the tuning so I don't think I left that for a customer

I'll do another recording on Thursday. The link can now be downloaded if you want to.

What's the prize for the first pristine ET recording? Maybe we should turn it into something physical and give it to the BIPM in Paris! Or is ET an American Imperial standard?

I keep checking other intervals as I tune octaves. That tends to make everything self-correcting.

Thank you, I was under the impression your 4th are more consistent than the rest. 5 the obviously are not, which is a trouble musically speaking.

I d suggest you use 5th and 4th to verify your first octave.

I do not like so much how it sound with the usual ladder on 3ds now I experimented Chas. It surprised me somehow..

Best regards.

Kees:

Here is another if you are willing.

https://app.box.com/s/wlpvbnui0zlkqyti8n0m

This is a victorian Ludwig upright that has been restrung. The sound isn't so great because it was recorded from the next room. My dog had to get into the act, too. Break is A#2-B2. Temperment is a D3-A4 P12. First is the M3s, then M6s and then the M6-M17 test.

I don't think I got it. My stability wasn't quite there, I believe. I am going to go stack BBs and clamp them in a vise to relax, now.

I was remembering that if a P4 and P5 have a common note on top or bottom and they beat at the same speed, it is about a 1/2 cent error. That is twice as much allowed to ensure chromatic M3s and M6s. Just thought I would mention this in case someone thinks that SBIs aren't important.

Nice set of beats !


WHat strikes me is that tuners make so many efforts to obtain those progressive FBI, I wonder if the slow ones are not juste left aside because they try so hard, and forget how important they are.

With the F A C# F sequence I learned , much 4th are tuned, little 5ths. That was the sense of my question.

The ladder of M3 have little or no influence on the amount of consonance obtained, that is what I discovered on the late.
(consonant intervals octaves, 12ths, 5ths etc)

The thirds don't make a difference to the slow beating intervals, that's right. The idea of the sequence is to have three octaves set within which to place the fourths and fifths. I definitely need to concentrate on getting them more even.

How would I use 4ths and 5ths to verify the octaves? I usually use the M3M10 vs m3M6 test.

Yes that is what I did also.
By focusing on how 2 5ths and 2 4ths take their place in the first octave you are beginning with good slow beating intervals .

I now use a 5th that is slower in the bottom than the one up.
Traditionally that is the opposite the high 5th is more active than the low one. (as active as the 4th with common note, as said Upright)
I also listen directly to the octave without checking as I did, and the consistency is as good (the first octave is probably a little smaller despite the beginning of a roll at 2:1.)

That is a little different of "stretch", to me stretch is when the focus is on high partials with less attention to the strength at 2:1 , the octave can easily became a little inconsistent musically speaking then (even if a similar size is used chromatically).