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) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(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 20 of 25 < 1 2 ... 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 >
Topic Options
#2189777 - 11/28/13 07:12 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
alfredo capurso Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 1059
Loc: Sicily - Italy
Originally Posted By: Olek
I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance.

Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story.

I understand that was included in the OT.

As there is a different ET for each pianon I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener.

A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower.


Ciao Isaac,

You wrote:

..."I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance."...

Do you mean... ET = progressive M3/6?

..."Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story."...

Yes, it is a different story, (mind you) both for "digital organs" and pianos. In both cases, we cannot have SBI's that double their beat-frequency every other octave. So, ET may well be defined (I would like to know what you mean), but the model is not 12 root of two.

..."I understand that was included in the OT."...

Me too.

..."As there is a different ET for each piano I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener."...

Hmmm... Here it gets difficult, 'cos I would go back to the first question, what is ET? But if you needed a formula for infinite "acustical" points... I would have one :-)

..."A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower."..

Yes, perhaps that is true, although I find it difficult to say. Anyway, I do not tune by listening only to pitch, as I used to do at first; I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Cordialmente,

Alfredo


Edited by alfredo capurso (11/28/13 07:24 PM)
_________________________
alfredo

Top
(ad PTG 568) Win a Year Journal Subscription
PTG 57th Annual Convention - Atlanta
#2189794 - 11/28/13 08:04 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: DoelKees]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
On the topic of using nearly equal beating ET test to define ET:
Besides the M3M6 test there is also a m3M3 test: C3Eb = F3A etc.
Doesn't seem to be popular, maybe IH messes this up too much in practice?

Kees

Top
#2189898 - 11/28/13 11:50 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: alfredo capurso]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Are you proposing that as the standard for ET? It sounds a bit vague.

Kees

Top
#2189902 - 11/29/13 12:06 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I still think Jeff's original standard of progressive M3/6's is the best.

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to tune progressive M3/6's just shows that tuning ET is indeed very difficult. So difficult that nobody can do it, even with an ETD! Still the examples posted are all close enough for practical purposes.

Kees

Top
#2189932 - 11/29/13 02:43 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1923
Loc: Suffolk, England
Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2189940 - 11/29/13 03:28 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 565
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Ian, according to my logic, which may be in error, it is possible to have poor ET with progressive M3rds OR M6ths, but good ET with progressive M3rds AND M6ths


Edited by Chris Leslie (11/29/13 03:28 AM)
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2189953 - 11/29/13 05:09 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: DoelKees]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

Fast beating intervals are the result of the division of each new octave, to me, if I am looking for a basic definition (without any particular musical meaning)




Edited by Olek (11/29/13 05:12 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2189957 - 11/29/13 05:39 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Chris Leslie]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1923
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
Ian, according to my logic, which may be in error, it is possible to have poor ET with progressive M3rds OR M6ths, but good ET with progressive M3rds AND M6ths

Chris, Thank you for that distinction. Going back to what Bill wrote, although not the point I had in mind, he says:

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.

Isaac mentions other SBIs and there are octaves to consider too.

Coming back to my question, would one hope to find that all intervals are progressive, or should I say evenly progressive, in a concert tuning (to the standard rxd mentioned early on in this thread)? I mean within practical limits, of course.


Edited by Withindale (11/29/13 07:14 AM)
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2189974 - 11/29/13 07:40 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
UnrightTooner Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4911
Loc: Bradford County, PA
All:

I don't think it is possible to have progressive M3s and M6s and not have apparently equal beating M3/M6 tests. And if the M3/M6 beats are apparently equal then the M3s and M6s will be progressive.

The word equal does have to be qualified whether we are talking about equal temperment or equal beating. I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

There are a couple of problems with substituting the m3 for the M6 in the inside outside test. First, it is only valid if the octave is about 6:3. That is the only time that the m3 and M6 beatrates are interchangeable. Second, since the partial match is higher (6:5 vs 5:3) they are fainter and more difficult to hear. Third, again because the partial match is higher, any anomaly in the string's iH will change the beatrate more as in the case of wound strings.

The one advantage is when the M3/M6 test is not available in the temperment sequence. I have tried using it in such circumstances, but there are usually other tests available by that time.

Yeah, it's available and useful but not popular.
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2189975 - 11/29/13 07:45 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: DoelKees]
UnrightTooner Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4911
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
I still think Jeff's original standard of progressive M3/6's is the best.

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to tune progressive M3/6's just shows that tuning ET is indeed very difficult. So difficult that nobody can do it, even with an ETD! Still the examples posted are all close enough for practical purposes.

Kees


Musically Significant Intervals. Hmmm.... Another Topic?
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2189988 - 11/29/13 08:13 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
UnrightTooner Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4911
Loc: Bradford County, PA
All:

When you think about "NIST traceable standards", the idea is to have something more accurate than what you can calibrate. So I agree with Kees. Since progressive M3s and M6s is easily definable yet apparently unatainable, it makes it a good standard.

Now the question is how unprogressive can they be and still be considered ET and not UT? The demonstrated tolerance seems to be +/- 3 semitones. (F-A might beat the same as G#-C but not A-C#). Or perhaps there would be a weighted average sort of thing. Like not more than 2 RBIs 3 semitones out of progression.

I would hate this to become what the PTG exam seems to be: a graded curve. It would be like "relative morality". But I don't know at what point an ET becomes a UT. The idea of Musically Significant Intervals comes up again...
_________________________
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?

Top
#2190012 - 11/29/13 10:09 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Phil D Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/15/10
Posts: 551
Loc: London, England
Another recording. I think I got a lot closer... definitely need to work on getting those fifths more even though!

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/yamaha-c110a-tuning
_________________________
Phil Dickson
The Cycling Piano Tuner

Top
#2190056 - 11/29/13 11:40 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: UnrightTooner]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees

Top
#2190061 - 11/29/13 11:47 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: DoelKees]
UnrightTooner Offline
4000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 4911
Loc: Bradford County, PA
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees


Would "approximately equal beating" be OK, then?

But really, the M3/M6 test is redundant to progressive M3s and M6s. Like saying fence posts are 4ft apart and every other one is 8ft apart.

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

Top
#2190067 - 11/29/13 11:59 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: UnrightTooner]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees


Would "approximately equal beating" be OK, then?

But really, the M3/M6 test is redundant to progressive M3s and M6s. Like saying fence posts are 4ft apart and every other one is 8ft apart.

I agree. Before leaving the subject of the M3/M6 test let me mention that many unequal temperaments, ebvt3 specifically, also have M3/M6 tests but instead of being a whole tone apart at different intervals (e.g., semitone, m3) depending where you are in the scale.

Kees

Top
#2190073 - 11/29/13 12:13 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees

Top
#2190114 - 11/29/13 01:52 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
prout Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 725
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?


The OP asks about a tuning standard, not a piano tuning standard, though that is likely what he meant. It is rare for large groups of pianos to be played together. Orchestras, however, do this regularly. Defining a tuning standard based on some progression of M3/M6 intervals is not likely to help the bassoonist play "in tune". Does the OP hope that some particular temperament scheme will be selected as the universal standard for all performing groups where a bassoonist can play an ascending scale in any key and know that it will be in tune with the cellist?

Top
#2190287 - 11/29/13 09:46 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Phil D]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Phil D
Another recording. I think I got a lot closer... definitely need to work on getting those fifths more even though!

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/yamaha-c110a-tuning

Here you go. There are a few instances where I can neither hear not see any beats.

M3

C#3F 5.1
DF# 5.5
D#G 7.0 (beats very faint)
EG# 6.5
FA 6.6
F#A# 7.2
GB 7.6
G#C 8.8
AC# 9.0
A#D 9.4
BD# 8.4
CE 10.5 (beats very faint)
C#F 11.2
DF# 12.0
D#G 12.1
EG# 13.8
F4A 14.1

M6

C#3A# (can see no beats)
DB 7.2
D#C 7.5
EC# 7.6
FD 7.7
F#D# 8.2
GE 8.6
G#F 9.5
AF# 10.4
A#G 10.5
BG# 10.3
C4A (can see no beats)

Kees

Top
#2190358 - 11/30/13 01:28 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: DoelKees]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees


Individual notes are reinforced by the amount of partials they trigger up and down.
I suggested slow beating intervals are more effectively doing so. (then FBI also but they are higher in the partial range and are less active for that part of the job...
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2190479 - 11/30/13 10:17 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
rxd Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 1703
Loc: London, England
I suppose the recording and concert industries are the main keepers of what standard there is. We are flexible, though, given the right circumstances.
I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?
_________________________
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
#2190492 - 11/30/13 10:53 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: rxd]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: rxd
I suppose the recording and concert industries are the main keepers of what standard there is. We are flexible, though, given the right circumstances.
I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?


Yes, as the ear is not accustomed, the effect can turn to be too addictive and common musical sense lost at some point.

(Better keep it, be it because the vast majority of listeners are accustomed to hear more evenness than "out of tuness")

I for one just believe that the tuning on piano does not need so much "acoustically pure" intervals to go to the point any "out of tuness" is really noticed.

Now if it is the goal is to play an old instrument with a less even tone, more variations are probably allowed.

While looking for that old recording of Nelson Freire at 13 , I find that one at 20, in 1969 (let you do the math guys, if of some interest wink
F#major Chopin barcarolle (dedicated to Mr Stockhausen - was not the same you think about guys wink )

I would call that "French style" of tuning. Hear that enough to recognize some characteristics. Unfortunately even after 30 years tuning I cannot link that to any particular method or temperament.
(The Steinways where different at that era, also..)



P.S food for though : the F3 F4 ladder of M3 is long time used in France, and was known as "Pleyel temperament", while I cannot put a date on it unfortunately.
That probably accounted for some evenness in tuning.


Edited by Olek (12/01/13 07:20 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2190503 - 11/30/13 11:11 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
I like that one, for instance :



But in that other recording, the piano is just out of tune, to me :


While the Bach Busoni sound nice, many other pieces are just sounding uncomfortable to me.


Edited by Olek (11/30/13 11:12 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2190509 - 11/30/13 11:19 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
BDB Offline
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21307
Loc: Oakland
Originally Posted By: Olek
I like that one, for instance :



But in that other recording, the piano is just out of tune, to me :


While the Bach Busoni sound nice, many other pieces are just sounding uncomfortable to me.


The second recording has a lot of flutter.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2190512 - 11/30/13 11:25 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
Yes , that may influence pitches indeed.

But unison also are terrible , I am talking justness, nowadays.

Not much "advantage" the pianist can use while playing, I mean... considering this he does very well.

the 4th F- C is extremly large while C3 C4 is large too (could it be a C3 C4 based temperament ?) I guess so, with a pure FC 5ths somewhere in the scale (reported to the basses it is clearly noticed)


Edited by Olek (11/30/13 11:49 AM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2190615 - 11/30/13 04:49 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees


Individual notes are reinforced by the amount of partials they trigger up and down.
I suggested slow beating intervals are more effectively doing so. (then FBI also but they are higher in the partial range and are less active for that part of the job...

Got the concept. Are you trying to maximize or minimize that reinforcing effect? As a player of mainly contrapuntal music I would like to minimize it. How does that prevent you from having progressive M3/6's?


Kees

Top
#2190647 - 11/30/13 06:13 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: OperaTenor]
Olek Offline
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7275
Loc: France
I'd like to give a precise answer to that.

I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths.

I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently.

I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale.

BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)

the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano.

I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic.

It mixes with the 3:2 beat and the 5th begin to be more interesting .

I feel the permanent raising of speed in fast beating intervals easily induce a sense of permanent tension, it is not so easy to have at the same time quietness and that raising tension that push the ear toward the treble. One need excellent instruments.

Pianists seem to like the way the enhanced unison make the piano sing. This is so strong it hide the inbalances that would strike the ear if the tone was more dull.

It is mostly based on the 12- 15 balance and CHAS style shape, while the imbalances in the tempering make chord differences more present, avoid too much predictability. That allow to go a little farther in direction of acoustically pure, without being obliged to attain it.
I hardly can obtain a mean to control that, at the moment. WHat I know is that I can avoid intervals sounding too badly, without making too much corrections., Just tuning where I feel the pitch is right and listening to the answer from the rest of the piano.
This is then absolutely linked to any flaws in my listening.

Musical behavior is not granted by an absolutely even progression of FBI, I mean, use an ETD with fixed curve, and you have something that sound tuned, but does not sound so much right.

The "answer" from the notes of the partial scale is so strong it allows to have good double and triple octave and even more, without the need to check them. I trained to listen to the strength of the coupling when I tune a new string, this does not give absolute justness, but it is abig help.

There is a certain amount of progressiveness, its curve shape is not too steep nor too straight







Edited by Olek (11/30/13 06:24 PM)
_________________________
Isaac OLEG - http://picasaweb.google.fr/PianoOleg pro

Top
#2190658 - 11/30/13 06:24 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: alfredo capurso]
alfredo capurso Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 1059
Loc: Sicily - Italy
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Olek
I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance.

Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story.

I understand that was included in the OT.

As there is a different ET for each pianon I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener.

A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower.


Ciao Isaac,

You wrote:

..."I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance."...

Do you mean... ET = progressive M3/6?

..."Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story."...

Yes, it is a different story, (mind you) both for "digital organs" and pianos. In both cases, we cannot have SBI's that double their beat-frequency every other octave. So, ET may well be defined (I would like to know what you mean), but the model is not 12 root of two.

..."I understand that was included in the OT."...

Me too.

..."As there is a different ET for each piano I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener."...

Hmmm... Here it gets difficult, 'cos I would go back to the first question, what is ET? But if you needed a formula for infinite "acustical" points... I would have one :-)

..."A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower."..

Yes, perhaps that is true, although I find it difficult to say. Anyway, I do not tune by listening only to pitch, as I used to do at first; I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Cordialmente,

Alfredo


Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Are you proposing that as the standard for ET? It sounds a bit vague.

Kees


Hi Kees,

There I was replying to Isaac. As a standard, I would propose Chas as the (theoretical) "optimum" and non-beating 12ths as the ante-room (does that word exist?), say something that we can check easly, provided we get non-beating 12ths by establishing progressive RBI's and SBI's. In order to do that, you need to invert 4ths and fifhts.

Hi Jeff,

I do not have time to quote your post, where you were mentioning "breaks"; on top of having to "see" a whole_form, I would like you to check one more "scaling" factor, namely how you set the picth in relation to the pin and the string's tension. In my experience, the partials scaling (leave the piano scaling aside) may variate significantly... to the point that pin/string setting might be the problem, more than the piano scaling itself. You would focus on progressive 6ths, but a 6th is... a 4th plus a M3.

Hi Isaac,

I could only listen to the first recording you posted today, French tuning or whatever... that piano could sound better :-)

Hi Phil,

I only looked at Kees' numbers, it seems you have done a very good job. Do you have discretional access to a piano, in London?

Regards, a.c.
.
_________________________
alfredo

Top
#2190696 - 11/30/13 07:31 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
alfredo capurso Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 1059
Loc: Sicily - Italy
Originally Posted By: Olek
I'd like to give a precise answer to that.

I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths.

I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently.

I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale.

BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)

the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano.

I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic.

It mixes with the 3:2 beat and the 5th begin to be more interesting .

I feel the permanent raising of speed in fast beating intervals easily induce a sense of permanent tension, it is not so easy to have at the same time quietness and that raising tension that push the ear toward the treble. One need excellent instruments.

Pianists seem to like the way the enhanced unison make the piano sing. This is so strong it hide the inbalances that would strike the ear if the tone was more dull.

It is mostly based on the 12- 15 balance and CHAS style shape, while the imbalances in the tempering make chord differences more present, avoid too much predictability. That allow to go a little farther in direction of acoustically pure, without being obliged to attain it.
I hardly can obtain a mean to control that, at the moment. WHat I know is that I can avoid intervals sounding too badly, without making too much corrections., Just tuning where I feel the pitch is right and listening to the answer from the rest of the piano.
This is then absolutely linked to any flaws in my listening.

Musical behavior is not granted by an absolutely even progression of FBI, I mean, use an ETD with fixed curve, and you have something that sound tuned, but does not sound so much right.

The "answer" from the notes of the partial scale is so strong it allows to have good double and triple octave and even more, without the need to check them. I trained to listen to the strength of the coupling when I tune a new string, this does not give absolute justness, but it is abig help.

There is a certain amount of progressiveness, its curve shape is not too steep nor too straight



Ciao Isaac,

I too feel like wanting to understand your priorities.

..."I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths."...

Do you mean that you go along your musical ear and sense of "in tune"? That you let your ear "drive" you, more than considering beats?

..."I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently."...

Do you mean that your ear calls for progressive FBI's? Or..., for you progressive FBI's are not the "absolute priority"?

..."I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale."...

I like how you describe intervals, I think I am more simplistic... If I consider a fifth on its own, say A3-E4, it could sound beatless or have a (narrow) 0.5 bps and my ear may still accept that; though with other notes it would become a problem. What makes a fifth warmer for you, does it mean purer or narrower?

..."BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)"...

Well, I do not know what Kees meant.

..."the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano."...

Yes, I think I get what you mean, but "that" particular 5th will also have to work as any other interval, so... what is (where do you find) the leeway?

..."I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic."...

That may well be, and I look forward to experiencing that.

Hmmm... I have to postpone the second half.

Have a nice Sunday,

Alfredo


Edited by alfredo capurso (12/01/13 12:01 PM)
_________________________
alfredo

Top
#2190699 - 11/30/13 07:43 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Olek]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1657
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Thanks Isaac for that explanation.

Am I correct in assuming voicing is also part of your process of what you call "congruence"? In other words, do you consider "tuning" and "voicing" not as completely distinct processes?

I have always wondered why proponents of UT do not also advocate unequal voicing. For example the baroque flute has very unequal voicing as accidentals are handled with forked fingerings, hence difference keys have their own character, independently of the tuning. The modern flute equalized all that with all those keys.

Anyways, with such an artistic approach to tuning as you seem to advocate, having a standard for tuning would be like having a standard for playing Bach.

Kees

Top
#2190984 - 12/01/13 02:37 PM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: Withindale]
alfredo capurso Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 1059
Loc: Sicily - Italy
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?


Hi Ian, good question.

Perhaps the first distinction is to be made between the 12-Tones ET and one ET amongst modern ET models.

I would discard the well known 12TET (12 root of two) in that it is of no use at all, not really (or not only) because of inharmonicity, but because (in theory) it doubles all beat-rates every other octave, and because in practice a zero-beating octave does not exist.

Modern ET's include "pure fifths" (proposed by Serge Cordier), which encompasses 7 tones, "pure 12ths" (proposed by Bernhard Stopper), which includes 19 tones, and Chas which encompasses 24 tones.

We might decide to go for one of these ET's, in which case - for obvious reasons - we would need to add the respective theoretical constraints.

Chas represents an exception: when it comes to aiming at the target into practice, it suggests the tuning of a sharper curve, which ever curve we may need in order to counter-balance (anticipate?) hysteresis.

Other requirements might be needed, in consideration of specific interval beat-curves, I do not know if you were also asking about that.

Best wishes,

Alfredo







Edited by alfredo capurso (12/01/13 02:39 PM)
_________________________
alfredo

Top
Page 20 of 25 < 1 2 ... 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 >

Moderator:  Piano World 
What's Hot!!
Our latest Issue is available now...
Piano News - Interesting & Fun Piano Related Newsletter! (free)
-------------------
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) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
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
65 registered (AZNpiano, Atrys, bennevis, beet31425, 17 invisible), 1209 Guests and 21 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
75609 Members
42 Forums
156349 Topics
2296345 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
New Topics - Multiple Forums
A new work for Japanese Harp "KOTO"
by Iori Fujita
Today at 03:41 AM
Pianos in timber homes vs brick homes
by Jibbers
Today at 02:37 AM
Debussy's opinion of other composers
by phantomFive
Today at 12:37 AM
Ivory v. Plastic Questions
by Retsacnal
Yesterday at 11:50 PM
The worst student in your studio
by Cardinal201
Yesterday at 11:43 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