Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Theoretical tuning sequence

I miss your legendary crackpottery alarm detector for this "equal beating/canceling" theorem

The effect of beat intensity reduction caused by ?summation? of beats with different rates.

So you do correct what you just tuned! Isn't it a sort of second pass? You are tuning each note twice!

And after correcting, nothing guarantees you that it won't move again as you continue tuning the rest of the notes.

Yes, it is a kind of second pass. If it drifts again, it doesn't drift as much since things are all settling down as we go along.

The real benefit is that, as I said, all notes don't drift as much, some don't need correcting, and not all drift for the same reason. So, using a high accuracy technique right from the beginning, if it's not to far out, and you can get a high accuracy fairly quickly, just keeps the focus, for me anyway.

BTW, I'm not trying to tell you to change how you're tuning, just sharing how I do it.

Keep the questions coming.

I tried this with audacity - both 665 and 661 plus 440. It sure sounds like beating to me as I can hear periodic variations in loudness. You definitely can have beats that are not due to partials near the same frequency - just do the summation of the two sines and you'll see periodic loudness variations in the 440+661 case.

[edit] just throw graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x) and graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.60*pi*x) into google, zoom out horizontally and you'll see the amplitude modulation in the 440+661Hz case.
Paul.

I guess I must see you in action to really understand how you do it.

Are you talking about the double string unison technique?

Hey Kees,
Two beats are created that are identical in frequency and 180 degrees out of phase. They are positive pressure waves so they can never add up to zero anywhere.

They work by cancelling a pressure wave with another pressure wave of opposite phase. But beats are not pressure waves.

Kees

I did the graph thing. Didn't see what you were talking about.

I've decided that the benefits of a particular technician's temperament sequence can not be understood completely, without knowing their stability method and their tuning method in general.

That is why I am refraining from being more specific with regards to my sequence or method. I am writing a book on it now and it will describe everything, including my highly accurate temperament sequence with windows for ET, the DSU method, and stability analysis for slow pull and impact, as well as philosophy of tuning.

I know it sounds arrogant, but I don't know any other way to explain it.

I'm still looking for proof readers. Let me know. You get a free copy and get to rake me over the coals.

If you promote your way of doing things but don't have the same amount of experience with other ways and try to show and say that another way is inferior, all you are doing is showing that you don't have experience with the other way and therefore it doesn't work for you as well as your way.

Mark,

If you promote your way of doing things but don't have the same amount of experience with other ways and try to show and say that another way is inferior, all you are doing is showing that you don't have experience with the other way and therefore it doesn't work for you as well as your way.

Take for example the typical 4ths & 5ths sequence. I passed my exam using it. I know how to do it. But I have also seen so many people fail using that method that I came up with something else. Every time I promote the idea of using Contiguous Major Thirds as a foundation for ET, somebody tells me that they don't do that and still get perfect results.

So, instead of trying to say that you have the only and best solution, try looking for a way to say that if other methods have not worked, then try this.

When I see you say how you "only tune one time" but go back and correct strings which have drifted, I think immediately that you only "fight with it one time". You say that you still think it would take less time than trying to do it twice and maybe for you, it would but not for me. For me, the pitch correction phase of any tuning is very low stress and takes about 15 minutes to go through the entire piano. The fine tuning phase is then also very low stress because most of the strings are already in tune. It is then a matter of finding and stabilizing only the recalcitrant ones.

I would never try to fool myself into thinking I could go through any piano just one time and have it be in tune when I finish but that is because I wouldn't fight with it the way you and anyone else who can't imagine doing two passes do.

I hope in your book that you also don't repeat the same false information about how temperament suddenly swung from Meantone to ET one day when Bach wrote the Well Tempered Clavier music. If you don't know what you are talking about in that regard, I suggest you leave the history of temperament subject alone entirely.