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 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#2305837 - 07/23/14 09:53 AM Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ?
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
In your experience, are relative partial strengths primarily a function of hammer voicing or soundboard/bridge impedance/resonance ?

I find significant variation in the relative strengths of the lower partials in the tenor/bass section of my piano.

(Edit: Ignore, for the moment, strike point, and assume constant velocity hammer strike.)


Edited by prout (07/23/14 10:18 AM)

Top
(ad PTG 568) Grand Action Regulation in 37 Steps
Grand Action Regulation in 37 Steps
#2305859 - 07/23/14 10:28 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
With wound strings, there are significant differences from string to string in spectrum balance. Plus longitudinal modes can act out in this area. But the hammer is about half the game.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2305912 - 07/23/14 12:05 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
A lot of older pianos have really hard hammers which emphasises the harmonics. If volume isn't the main issue, try softening the hammers.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2305917 - 07/23/14 12:15 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2305928 - 07/23/14 12:34 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: prout
In your experience, are relative partial strengths primarily a function of hammer voicing or soundboard/bridge impedance/resonance ?
In my experience, so far, relative partial strength is primarily a function of the hammer weight, strike point shape/surface-area, and hammer hardness/squishiness/resiliency.

Soundboard/bridge/rim impedance/resonance issues deal more with the system's ability to disseminate the tonal energy: the more flexible the system, the greater potential there is for louder attack sounds--but there will be less energy left over for the decay portion of the sound envelope. However, there is also a tonal influence: flexible systems allow for a boomier/bassy tone, and conversely, stiffer boards result in a thinner sound--yet have greater sustainability/singing-tone.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2305957 - 07/23/14 01:11 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
My ear clearly hears that some third partials partials are louder than the fourth partial. On adjacent notes, the fourth partial is louder than the third.

There is little point in choosing a 6:3 octave for A2/A3 if the fourth partial of A2 overwhelms the third partial A3. Yet, G2/G3 might be better with a 6:3 octave if the fourth partial of G2 is weak. It would seem that a talented voicer might be able to even out the differences enough that one could have a more consistent stretch.

One other point. I would think that a soundboard exhibits a variety of resonant modes, some of which might enhance the transfer of energy to the soundboard, while at other frequencies the transfer would be inhibited. This would also seem to affect perceived partial strengths.

Top
#2306045 - 07/23/14 04:21 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.

Try as I might, I have never found a published source in the realm of physics, acoustics, music, or electronics that states harmonics are an artificial construct. Please cite at least one reference that supports your claim. I figure if I can hear them, they are real to me.

Top
#2306050 - 07/23/14 04:29 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: BDB
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.

Try as I might, I have never found a published source in the realm of physics, acoustics, music, or electronics that states harmonics are an artificial construct. Please cite at least one reference that supports your claim. I figure if I can hear them, they are real to me.


Well, I suppose the formulation was a little clumsy. If taken literally, some atheists say "I AM the harmonics !"

Prout that means you have the "Fourier on my mind" syndrome.



Edited by Olek (07/23/14 04:30 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2306052 - 07/23/14 04:31 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
Mark R. Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 2010
Loc: Pretoria, South Africa
Originally Posted By: BDB
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.


Harmonics are no artificial construct.

They are identifiable and elicitable, and they are the real constituents of a complex [edit: i.e. multi-faceted, not "complex" in the mathematical sense] waveforum (including its initial state). That shape, initially determined by the hammer impact, is modified over time - not only by impedance factors, but also by the influence of wire stiffness on each harmonic's (or partial's) propagation speed. Their sum (at any point in time) determines the shape of the string (at that point in time).

Of course, I'd gladly be proved wrong.



Edited by Mark R. (07/23/14 04:33 PM)
Edit Reason: given in post
_________________________
Autodidact interested in piano technology.

1922 49" Zimmermann, project piano.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.

Top
#2306059 - 07/23/14 04:41 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: BDB
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.

Try as I might, I have never found a published source in the realm of physics, acoustics, music, or electronics that states harmonics are an artificial construct. Please cite at least one reference that supports your claim. I figure if I can hear them, they are real to me.


Well, I suppose the formulation was a little clumsy. If taken literally, some atheists say "I AM the harmonics !"

Prout that means you have the "Fourier on my mind" syndrome.


If that is the case, my brain must do FFT analysis before I hear the partials. laugh I am sure I can hear more than one frequency at a time when a piano note is played. If I am not hearing that, then what am I hearing, and, more importantly, how does an aural piano tuner tune?

Top
#2306077 - 07/23/14 05:17 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: prout
There is little point in choosing a 6:3 octave for A2/A3 if the fourth partial of A2 overwhelms the third partial A3. Yet, G2/G3 might be better with a 6:3 octave if the fourth partial of G2 is weak. It would seem that a talented voicer might be able to even out the differences enough that one could have a more consistent stretch.
I think I understand what you are saying, but hammer voicing isn't able to effect one partial vs. the other in terms of loudness. Let me put it a different way: the problem you describe lies not with the hammer, but with something else in the system--it sounds like a string issue to me. Hammer voicing can voice down both the 3rd/4th partials to a level where there is not such difference, but then the overall sound would probably also lose clarity.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2306080 - 07/23/14 05:30 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: A443
Originally Posted By: prout
There is little point in choosing a 6:3 octave for A2/A3 if the fourth partial of A2 overwhelms the third partial A3. Yet, G2/G3 might be better with a 6:3 octave if the fourth partial of G2 is weak. It would seem that a talented voicer might be able to even out the differences enough that one could have a more consistent stretch.
I think I understand what you are saying, but hammer voicing isn't able to effect one partial vs. the other in terms of loudness. Let me put it a different way: the problem you describe lies not with the hammer, but with something else in the system--it sounds like a string issue to me. Hammer voicing can voice down both the 3rd/4th partials to a level where there is not such difference, but then the overall sound would probably also lose clarity.


Thanks. That was what I wanted to know.

I have assumed that the sound emanating from a piano into the room is similar to the sound emanating from a speaker into the room. The system (strings, bridge, soundboard, case, lid, walls, etc.), due to the interaction of the various components, causes some reinforcement or some cancellation of the various partials (if they exist ha), much as the amplifier, speaker crossover, drivers, room interaction causes similar effects on the speaker frequency response.

Top
#2306082 - 07/23/14 05:33 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
I would appreciate anyone who thinks that there are an infinite number of sine wave generators in a piano string to show me them. The idea is absurd to me.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306083 - 07/23/14 05:36 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
I would appreciate anyone who thinks that there are an infinite number of sine wave generators in a piano string to show me them. The idea is absurd to me.


Do you hear and use partials when setting the temperament on a piano? If not, how do you tune pianos. (I assume you can tune, though you state you are a tech, not a tuner.)

Top
#2306087 - 07/23/14 05:42 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
I tune using beats. Beats are combinatorics, not partials.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306088 - 07/23/14 05:45 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
I tune using beats. Beats are combinatorics, not partials.


In order to have a specific beat rate, you need to have two specific frequencies beating against each other. Given F3/A3 M3 in ET at A4=440Hz, what are the two frequencies that are beating?

Edit: My understanding of combinatorics from ancient high school is that it deals with enumerable elements. This is not the case with beating partials.





Edited by prout (07/23/14 05:52 PM)

Top
#2306091 - 07/23/14 05:55 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: BDB
I would appreciate anyone who thinks that there are an infinite number of sine wave generators in a piano string to show me them. The idea is absurd to me.
Who said anything about an infinite number of sine wave generators and piano strings? BDB, if you think it is an absurd concept, why bring it up and then argue against your own logic? Maybe you should leave the argument part to other people--who are better at it?!? 2hearts
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2306092 - 07/23/14 05:56 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 625
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
To isolate an anomaly to a hammer/voicing you could try swapping adjacent hammers. Also, is there a difference with una-corda?


Edited by Chris Leslie (07/23/14 06:45 PM)
Edit Reason: Deleted a comment
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2306106 - 07/23/14 06:42 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Originally Posted By: prout
In order to have a specific beat rate, you need to have two specific frequencies beating against each other. Given F3/A3 M3 in ET at A4=440Hz, what are the two frequencies that are beating?


174.6 and 220.0, of course. What else would they be?

Beats occur as the maxima and minima of those two vibrations coincide, alternating with the coinciding of the maxima of one and the minima of the other. Pure combinatorics!
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306108 - 07/23/14 06:45 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: prout
In order to have a specific beat rate, you need to have two specific frequencies beating against each other. Given F3/A3 M3 in ET at A4=440Hz, what are the two frequencies that are beating?


174.6 and 220.0, of course. What else would they be?

Beats occur as the maxima and minima of those two vibrations coincide, alternating with the coinciding of the maxima of one and the minima of the other. Pure combinatorics!
cry wow is this a really bad joke?!?
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2306111 - 07/23/14 06:52 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
You don't actually believe that the two frequencies (e.g., 174.6Hz and 220Hz) combine to form beats (i.e., that you tune to), do you?!?!?!? crazy
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2306146 - 07/23/14 07:41 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
I tune using beats. Beats are combinatorics, not partials.


Good evening again BDB. I approach partials as if they were a result of a "partial theory". This "partial theory", which may be totally wrong (if there is such a thing as truth), is sufficient to model and predict the motion of piano strings sufficiently well to tune a piano - by ear, or by ETD. It is important to understand that the "partial theory" is not "truth", nor does it need to be. It is, however, a convenient, common, theory that allows us to talk about tuning, temperaments, measurement of partials, and the like.

I hope you understand that I don't concern myself about whether or not partials exist. Until the theory fails and is replaced by a better theory, it works well enough for me.

On that basis, this discussion, regarding relative partial intensities, is valid.

Top
#2306159 - 07/23/14 08:21 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Sure, I understand. There are several ways of looking at things. Partials are an abstraction that come from the Fourier series approximation of a periodic function. My only objection is to those people who think there are harmonic fairies magically making sine waves of all different frequencies hiding in a vibrating string, and they are what give a piano its characteristic sound.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306217 - 07/23/14 11:07 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
SMHaley Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 646
Loc: Seattle
Aside from the acoustic transmission of sound, one cannot forget that variations in the ear will color our perception. I have one ear more sensitive to hi frequency harmonics than another thanks to an MD rupturing one as a child. It can be helpful or frustrating in some tuning situations.
_________________________
AA Music Arts 2001, BM 2005
Pipe Organ Builder
Practitioner of piano technology
Church Music Professional
Curator of instruments - Chancel Arts
Baldwin F 1960 (146256)
Zuckermann Flemish Single

Top
#2306233 - 07/23/14 11:45 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1265
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: BDB
I would appreciate anyone who thinks that there are an infinite number of sine wave generators in a piano string to show me them. The idea is absurd to me.


That's ok. You're not an aural tuner (I assume or you wouldn't be making these comments), so the idea is absurd to you. We, aural tuners, on the other hand, use these everyday to tune pianos. Of course we are going to choke on our coffee when reading comments like yours. Don't take it personally.

If you want to talk absurd, what exactly is gravity? I stick to the world? That just doesn't make sense to me, but I deal with it and use it every day to help me do stuff.

Have you seen my video on the harmonic series? You might find it interesting:

http://howtotunepianos.com/podcast-6/


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (07/23/14 11:47 PM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2306245 - 07/24/14 12:18 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
It is not that I am not an aural tuner, it is that I came from a different tradition from most of you. My background was in mathematics, not the lore of piano tuning, which, all too often, is not very well integrated with physics and mathematics, nor with the relationship between the two.

Incidentally, I said an infinite number of sine wave generators because that is how many are needed to come arbitrarily close to most periodic functions. But two would do.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306281 - 07/24/14 03:40 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Mark R. Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 2010
Loc: Pretoria, South Africa
For the sake of a productive discussion, I'd start to remove the fairies from the picture.
_________________________
Autodidact interested in piano technology.

1922 49" Zimmermann, project piano.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.

Top
#2306312 - 07/24/14 06:49 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Mark R.]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark R.
For the sake of a productive discussion, I'd start to remove the fairies from the picture.


I think that some form of "beat" or fluctuation can be noticed based only on one frequency by note, with fundamental also. But it is very faint. I doubt it can be mistaken with the stronger combination activity obtained with partials.

May be your comment, BDB, goes in line with my impression you tune mostly at fundamental level (unison, beat perception) which is possible but a little dull or "closed" in my opinion.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2306315 - 07/24/14 06:53 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
ando Offline
3000 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/23/10
Posts: 3583
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted By: BDB
It is not that I am not an aural tuner, it is that I came from a different tradition from most of you. My background was in mathematics, not the lore of piano tuning, which, all too often, is not very well integrated with physics and mathematics, nor with the relationship between the two.

Incidentally, I said an infinite number of sine wave generators because that is how many are needed to come arbitrarily close to most periodic functions. But two would do.



Your mathematics isn't necessarily well integrated with the physics of piano strings. Mathematics = physics. The assumptions and axioms you start from on the physics side determine the mathematics you use to quantify it.

There is nothing absurd about simultaneous sinusoidal periodic movements within the same string - your total bewilderment about it is in itself bewildering to most of us. Surely you can stretch your imagination far enough to see that it might be possible, even if you have an alternative theory? Certainly there is no justification for your persistent outrage at the mere idea.

Top
#2306318 - 07/24/14 07:37 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1265
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Science is not nature, it mearly tries to describe it in useful terms so we can predict its behaviour.

Did you watch the video? There are four examples that show partials are not imagined, and string vibration can be thought of as a combination of sine waves.

I think I know what you may be getting at though.

If string vibration was indeed produced directly from individual sine tone generation, then the synthesizer algorithms of the 80's should have been able to accurately reproduce authentic sounds that could not be distinguished from the real acoustic.instrument, which of course is not true.
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2306325 - 07/24/14 08:05 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Mark Cerisano, RPT]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Science is not nature, it mearly tries to describe it in useful terms so we can predict its behaviour.

Did you watch the video? There are four examples that show partials are not imagined, and string vibration can be thought of as a combination of sine waves.

I think I know what you may be getting at though.

If string vibration was indeed produced directly from individual sine tone generation, then the synthesizer algorithms of the 80's should have been able to accurately reproduce authentic sounds that could not be distinguished from the real acoustic.instrument, which of course is not true.


That said, PIanoteq and the GT2 (2?) are impressive in realism today.

The GT have even inserted the vibration we perceive in the keys when they are bottoming wink My brother, violinist , had a rehearsal with one, and told me after 54 minutes the "digital tone" is not noticed anymore, they could work normally.

In daily professional use, the sensors (rail) can worn out in +-10 years, and need changing. (not cheap, but unavoidable, anyway with the first models)


I do not understand BDB idea, partials cannot be dismissed, as they are responsible for the tone recognizing, different processes of tone production creating different ranges of partials hence different presence or absence of those in the final tone)

Their stability in piano tone, and predictability, can really be put in caution, hence the necessity to control what ETD's are proposing.






Edited by Olek (07/24/14 08:13 AM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2306366 - 07/24/14 09:07 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
bkw58 Offline

Silver Supporter until December 19, 2014


Registered: 03/14/09
Posts: 1728
Loc: Conway, AR USA
Originally Posted By: BDB
Harmonics are an artificial construct which reflect the way that a waveform is approximated by a Fourier series. The waveform depends on the initial conditions of the wave, that is, the shape the string is when it begins to move. That shape is determined by the hammer. Later, it may be modified by the impedance of the bridge and soundboard.


Hi BDB. I am trying to understand what you are saying. "Artificial" is a rather elastic word. Are you using it in the sense of "produced by man; not occurring naturally" or in another way?
_________________________
Bob W.
Retired piano technician
Piano Technicć Blog

Top
#2306377 - 07/24/14 09:23 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: BDB
Sure, I understand. There are several ways of looking at things. Partials are an abstraction that come from the Fourier series approximation of a periodic function. My only objection is to those people who think there are harmonic fairies magically making sine waves of all different frequencies hiding in a vibrating string, and they are what give a piano its characteristic sound.


BDB, I also come from the field of mathematics, and I fully understand what you mean when you say that harmonics are an artificial abstraction. I agree that could be said of harmonics. But not of partials. They are not the result of Fourier analysis of a periodic waveform, but rather the result of real physically separate modes of vibration in the string. This is evident from the fact that they can be excited separately by plucking the string in just the right place and lightly damping the string in another place. They are also not harmonics because they are not phase-locked to the fundamental as real harmonics are, and since the whole waveform is not strictly period.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2306410 - 07/24/14 10:57 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
Robert Scott,
Great explanation.

The string is a wave medium with specific dispersal rates determined by the elasticities and mass.

I think what BDB is saying is that the initial deflection of the string carries all the information that will be revealed over time. Of course the properties of the wave medium and it's boundaries change the shape of the initial deflection over time. So the sum total wave form of taut piano strings is non-periodic. But each separable component wave is periodic.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2306425 - 07/24/14 11:24 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
BDB, I also come from the field of mathematics, and I fully understand what you mean when you say that harmonics are an artificial abstraction. I agree that could be said of harmonics. But not of partials. They are not the result of Fourier analysis of a periodic waveform, but rather the result of real physically separate modes of vibration in the string. This is evident from the fact that they can be excited separately by plucking the string in just the right place and lightly damping the string in another place. They are also not harmonics because they are not phase-locked to the fundamental as real harmonics are, and since the whole waveform is not strictly period.


Exciting the string in different modes is not the same as the actual existence of partials as separate vibrations in a string.

What I really do not understand is why this is so important to people. I view beats as the results of combinatorics. Others view them as the creation of harmonic fairies. If it works for you, fine. I have posted recordings of my tunings. Most of you have not. If you want, you can make an appointment to drop by and experience my tunings in person.

There may only be limited circumstances where the difference matters. Since I view beats as the result of combinatorics, if the waveform varies, so do the beats. This means that voicing affects tuning. This is most evident in the bass, where softer hammers excite the string more closely to the fundamental mode, enough so that the coincidence of maxima and minima change, and the beats are better if the pitch is lower.

Oh, and there is the other fact that I mentioned somewhere else, about the speed of the hammer being bounced off the string being related to the frequency of the note. There are no harmonic fairies throwing them off any faster, although the characteristics of the hammers will make a difference.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306426 - 07/24/14 11:24 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Ed McMorrow, RPT]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Ed McMorrow, RPT
Robert Scott,
Great explanation.

The string is a wave medium with specific dispersal rates determined by the elasticities and mass.

I think what BDB is saying is that the initial deflection of the string carries all the information that will be revealed over time. Of course the properties of the wave medium and it's boundaries change the shape of the initial deflection over time. So the sum total wave form of taut piano strings is non-periodic. But each separable component wave is periodic.


So perhaps we could think (idealized of course) of disturbances of the piano string as ripples on a pond. There are many different periodic waves simultaneously that exist, with different parameters, pass through each other and, to the observer at a particular point, constructively or destructively interact.

Clearly there are relationships amongst the waves, as they acoustically couple (longitudinal and transverse waves for one) and are all affected by bridge bending, soundboard movement, which changes the instantaneous tension of the string.

Top
#2306592 - 07/24/14 04:31 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Mark R. Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 2010
Loc: Pretoria, South Africa
Why the insistence on fairies, BDB? You are doing the discussion no favor by belittling it.

Any spectral analyzer, be it aural (frequency filter or analyzer, i.e. frequency domain) or visual (stroboscopic, i.e. time domain) shows modes to be present, simultaneously, in a string.

It also shows the beats of an (non-unison) interval to occur not between the fundamentals, but between the coincident partials. Just look at some of the spectrograms that Kees posted.

(Think about it: why would 174.6 Hz and 220 Hz beat at 7 Hz? Multiply the one by 5, the other by 4, and you have a 7 Hz beat. The beat is not happening at the fundamental!)
_________________________
Autodidact interested in piano technology.

1922 49" Zimmermann, project piano.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.

Top
#2306619 - 07/24/14 05:14 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
So if you have an instrument like an organ, which produces pure sine waves, there would be no beats between 174.6 and 220, and you could not tune it, because there are no partials.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306630 - 07/24/14 05:34 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
So if you have an instrument like an organ, which produces pure sine waves, there would be no beats between 174.6 and 220, and you could not tune it, because there are no partials.


Harmonics are a subset of partials. A Major third will beat at the 5 and 4 harmonic ( assuming the fundamental frequency is the first harmonic) in the same manner that it will on a piano. Organs ( including the Hammond C3 and B3 ) all have sound generators that produce, simultaneously, a multitude of harmonics - the pipe by its shape, and the B3 by multiple sine wave generators.

Top
#2306645 - 07/24/14 06:11 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
The point is that sine waves have no partials. Take two sine waves. They will beat, not because partials coincide, but because of combinatorics.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306649 - 07/24/14 06:17 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: BDB
The point is that sine waves have no partials. Take two sine waves. They will beat, not because partials coincide, but because of combinatorics.


That is an interesting concept. Do you have any math that would predict the beat ratios, either of an organ pipe or a piano string?

Top
#2306666 - 07/24/14 07:03 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 625
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Originally Posted By: BDB
The point is that sine waves have no partials. Take two sine waves. They will beat, not because partials coincide, but because of combinatorics.


I tried this with a simulator with no iH and with P1's only, ie with pure single sine waves per note. The only beating intervals are nearly coincident unisons. I find it impossible to recognise normal intervals with any degree of accuracy without hearing any beats, and therefore impossible to aurally tune with any accuracy.
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2306733 - 07/24/14 10:32 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
BDB,
I don't see the significance of your wave model to pianos. It seems incomplete.

The partial tones are there as a result of simple harmonic motion in a somewhat less than perfectly elastic two dimensional medium with somewhat elastic boundary conditions.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2306744 - 07/24/14 11:03 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Chris Storch Offline
Full Member

Registered: 08/13/09
Posts: 200
Loc: Massachusetts


In my mind I've named the guy on the right Joseph Fourier...

Doesn't seem to be a particularly rapid beat rate, but I'm sure he's getting his point across.
_________________________
Chris Storch
Acoustician / Piano Technician

Top
#2306755 - 07/24/14 11:37 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
At any rate, it is an illustration of "ill-temperment".
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2306839 - 07/25/14 06:57 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
WilliamTruitt Online   content
Full Member

Registered: 07/12/14
Posts: 88
Loc: New Hampshire
Or Unjust intonation....
_________________________
Will Truitt

Top
#2306871 - 07/25/14 09:19 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
pyropaul Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/16/10
Posts: 186
Loc: Montreal
As I posted into another thread, just put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x) into google, select horizontal zoom and zoom out. The "beats" that you hear are an amplitude modulation effect. If you put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x)- essentially a major 12th that's off by 1Hz, you will still see an amplitude modulation (that you can also hear as beats). So you can tune any interval with pure sinewave. Of course sin(A) + sin(B) is "combinatronics". You don't need partials to tune, you just need to remove any amplitude modulation to zero. Also, organs do not produce pure sinewaves - even a B3's tonewheel generator does not produce a pure sine. Even if it did, you'd still be able to tune it.

There's no technical difference between "partials" and "harmonics" - they are both sinewaves at a certain frequency - just that the latter have an exact integer multiple ratio to the fundamental. Essentially our ears are spectrum analyzers that operate in near real time (there's about a 20ms processing delay in our brains) - so we hear the frequency relationships, but are unable to distinguish the phase relationships. If you don't believe the latter, synthesize a tone from sinewaves using whatever method you like and then offset the phase of the different oscillators - you will not hear any difference for any static setting of phase. Of course, if the phase is changing, this is perceptible as a frequency modulation.

Paul.

Top
#2306890 - 07/25/14 09:44 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: pyropaul]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
As I posted into another thread, just put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x) into google, select horizontal zoom and zoom out. The "beats" that you hear are an amplitude modulation effect. If you put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x)- essentially a major 12th that's off by 1Hz, you will still see an amplitude modulation (that you can also hear as beats). So you can tune any interval with pure sinewave. Of course sin(A) + sin(B) is "combinatronics". You don't need partials to tune, you just need to remove any amplitude modulation to zero. Also, organs do not produce pure sinewaves - even a B3's tonewheel generator does not produce a pure sine. Even if it did, you'd still be able to tune it.

There's no technical difference between "partials" and "harmonics" - they are both sinewaves at a certain frequency - just that the latter have an exact integer multiple ratio to the fundamental. Essentially our ears are spectrum analyzers that operate in near real time (there's about a 20ms processing delay in our brains) - so we hear the frequency relationships, but are unable to distinguish the phase relationships. If you don't believe the latter, synthesize a tone from sinewaves using whatever method you like and then offset the phase of the different oscillators - you will not hear any difference for any static setting of phase. Of course, if the phase is changing, this is perceptible as a frequency modulation.

Paul.


Using your logic, a single string, which contains partials, for example, due to iH, of 440, 881, and 1322.3 must beat like crazy all on its own. The only poster here who has heard that is Isaac. Maybe we learn to ignore the beating of a single string when tuning.

Top
#2306907 - 07/25/14 10:16 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Mark R. Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 2010
Loc: Pretoria, South Africa
BDB,

Granted, organ pipes produce sine waves, yes. But they don't produce only one sine wave per pipe. Where do you think the different timbre of different stops comes from? Each pipe produces a multitude of sine waves. (To wit: its specific harmonic series.) The timbre of each stop comes from the relative strength of the fundamental and each overtone.

So, even in an organ, 174.6 does not beat against 220. Rather, the fifth partial (i.e. fourth overtone) of the first pipe beats against the fourth partial (i.e. third overtone) of the second pipe. Exactly as in a piano, except that the overtone series in an organ is harmonic (f, 2f, 3f, etc.)

And just like a piano string doesn't disintegrate because it moves as a sum of modes, neither does the air column inside an organ pipe disintegrate because it contains several simultaneous standing waves.

Still, no fairies.

Conversely: a pure, single-frequency sine wave of 174.6 and a pure, single-frequency sine wave of 220 Hz will not beat - most certainly not at 7 Hz! As Chris Leslie wrote, with pure, single-frequency sine waves, the only beating intervals are near-coincident unisons. [Edit: the 174.6 and 220 of an organ, or a piano for that matter, do beat, because their respective partial series contain near-coincident partials.]

Finally, a question:

If 880 is only a "fairy" inside an A220 string, why can I get an un-damped A880 to ring by playing A220? (Should we be "fairying" notes, rather than ghosting them?)


Edited by Mark R. (07/25/14 10:20 AM)
Edit Reason: given in post.
_________________________
Autodidact interested in piano technology.

1922 49" Zimmermann, project piano.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.

Top
#2306924 - 07/25/14 10:47 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Mark R.]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Actually in an organ, each stop is a fairy. Add them together and they make a different tone. It does not follow that just because you can add things together, you can take things apart from something that started out not put together. You could try this: Pick something up with your hand. Then chop your fingers off, put them back together, and see if it works as well as it did before.

Everything that you say is a result of partials can be explained through combinatorics. Just look at how waves may interact to see that.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2306937 - 07/25/14 11:14 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
I think a little hunting on youtube will yield some nice strobe pictures of vibrating strings that have multiple harmonics on them. Violinist all know how to play harmonics, so strings can support multiple pitches that are in harmonic relationships with each other.

By the way, the inner ear is the ultimate Fast Fourier Transform device.

If you want to hear partials, just strike a bass not with the damper up on a note an octave and a fifth above. You will hear the latter string vibrate in sympathy with the third harmonic of the bass string.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2306944 - 07/25/14 11:30 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
BDB: An organ pipe produces a unique tone as a result of its length/width ratio, taper, pipe material (wood, tin), and whether or not it has a reed. These variations give rise to various standing waves of various harmonics in the pipe.

gynnis: BDB has a different way of thinking about sound wave structures from many of us. The fact that we produce pictures of vibrational modes on a string, and that a violinist can create harmonics by touching the string at a node point, does not mean that they actually exist as independent entities. It simply means that we create a paradigm for observation, and we see what we expected to see. From that observation we can model and predict certain string behaviours to a reasonable, but not exact, level of accuracy.

Top
#2306953 - 07/25/14 11:58 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Chris Leslie]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
Originally Posted By: BDB
The point is that sine waves have no partials. Take two sine waves. They will beat, not because partials coincide, but because of combinatorics.


I tried this with a simulator with no iH and with P1's only, ie with pure single sine waves per note. The only beating intervals are nearly coincident unisons. I find it impossible to recognise normal intervals with any degree of accuracy without hearing any beats, and therefore impossible to aurally tune with any accuracy.
I did similar experiments in 90s and had the same observations: sine waves don't beat audibly like coincident partials do. There is a HUGE range that still sounds in-tune, even when it's not. It's not impossible to tune aurally but, you'd have to listen using a completely different skill set--and accuracy is not very consistent. f
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2306974 - 07/25/14 12:57 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
A single pipe on a pipe organ does not produce a pure sine wave. The "flute" pipes produce close to a sine wave, so it has very weak harmonics. But even these weak harmonics are enough to be heard when tuning a pipe organ, so even the flute stops can be tuned by beats using intervals like octaves, 4ths, 5ths, and 3rds. Pipes in other stops have even richer harmonics as they deviate more from sine waves.

As for experiments with pure sine waves, here is a trick you can add: Take the sound of two sine waves that have a nice frequency ratio, like 3:4. As was mentioned already, you will not hear any beats because there are no harmonics to beat. But, take that same sound and add a little distortion. Turn up the volume until the speaker cones are buzzing a little, or place a paper clip on the speaker cone - anything to slightly distort the sound. Then you will be creating harmonic distortion, and beats will suddenly appear.

@BDB: Combinatorics is the study of things like latin squares, projective planes of finite order, balanced incomplete block designs and Hadamard matrices. I don't think this field describes how beats are produced.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2307019 - 07/25/14 02:36 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
@BDB



Can't you really see the diferent modes of vibration?

These are partials. If they can be heard, if they can be seen, then they exist and are not an abstraction.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307025 - 07/25/14 02:50 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
@BDB



Can't you really see the diferent modes of vibration?

These are partials. If they can be heard, if they can be seen, then they exist and are not an abstraction.


One must be careful to understand the experiment and the method of recording the observations. Remember wagon wheels turning backwards in a movie on a wagon clearly moving forward? What you see is an artifact of the recording process.

One can clearly see the fan blades stopped when strobed at the correct rpm, yet we think that the fan is still moving because we can feel the airflow. A movie made of that fan would clearly show that is stopped.

Our hand cannot easily pass through a solid wood tabletop. It is clearly solid because we can't see through it. Yet there are theories and observations that show the space occupied by atoms is mostly empty, and, it is possible for our hand to pass through the tabletop, just not very probable.

All I am saying is that BDB provides a different view and food for thought.

Top
#2307043 - 07/25/14 03:39 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Prout,

The video was addressed to BDB.

Don't tell me you also believe partials do not exist!

Do you?
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307047 - 07/25/14 03:48 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Strobos hide us part of what is happening, so what we see is an incomplete succession that can be missinterpreted.

What I've posted is a ultra high speed video, exactly the opposite.

It hides nothing to our view as strobos do.

Your analogy is invalid here.



Edited by Gadzar (07/25/14 03:55 PM)
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307057 - 07/25/14 04:19 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
Prout,

The video was addressed to BDB.

Don't tell me you also believe partials do not exist!

Do you?



It i seen how the bad center (that one woobble a lot) is sending some twisdting wave on the small piece of wire there.

I cannot believe it is the end of a long bass wire. not it is tense enough
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307071 - 07/25/14 04:47 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
Prout,

The video was addressed to BDB.

Don't tell me you also believe partials do not exist!

Do you?



This could be a totally different topic. I don't believe in anything. I never have.

I do partial analysis using accepted techniques. It allows me to visualize, in my mind, a way of thinking about sound waves. I don't know and I don't care if there is some sort of absolute "truth" about things. BDB's thoughts are as valid as anyone's posting here on this thread.

Some people (mostly fundamentalist types, not necessarily religious) spend their lives espousing an absolute faith in some idea or phenomenon. I spend my life asking questions, positing ideas, in the hope of being shown a different way of thinking about something. I gain much in the process.

I welcome BDB and his ideas.

Top
#2307075 - 07/25/14 04:54 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
All these descriptions are models. All models are limited in scope. The reason specific models get adopted by people interested in solving problems is in the utility to make predictions from them.

I have yet to see how the combinatoric model is useful.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2307088 - 07/25/14 05:26 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1723
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Saying partials don't exist is like saying the earth is not a sphere.

Kees

Top
#2307111 - 07/25/14 06:27 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
This is science and technology and not democratie nor religion. Here there are some who know and some who don't know.

Here the knowledge is the master and the ignorance is the slave.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307114 - 07/25/14 06:43 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
BDB, I am willing to think further about your concepts. But, the main problem I have is with your understanding of sine waves and how they look and sound when combined. Have you played around with them on a computer?!? Are you sure this is what you are listening to? The way they combined can be well seen, in addition to heard.

There are differences--I played around training myself to hear those differences for a few months--but for me, this was a different aural process altogether. If you have trained yourself to hear intervals in that way, I think it would be a fascinating conversation.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307149 - 07/25/14 08:20 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: DoelKees]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Saying partials don't exist is like saying the earth is not a sphere.

Kees


Glad to have another 'believer' on board, being that the earth is clearly not a sphere.

Top
#2307159 - 07/25/14 08:35 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
Nice slow motion of the bass string. Interesting to see the damper twist. Looks like the damper still hits the string in places.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2307163 - 07/25/14 08:48 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
It's also pretty clear from the slow motion that string sound is made up of a lot of messy things besides just nice clean harmonics. Also the string gallops in three dimensions. This of course is what gives color to the sound. No mathematical model is likely to give such a messy picture. Perhaps this is why the computer modeled pianos are rather fatiguing to hear after a while.

If you are going to hear partials or harmonics by adding sine waves, you will need some kind of non-linear element to get mixing. A piano string has plenty of non-linearity as shown in the slow motion picture. If you are just dealing with sine waves on the screen you either need to multiply them or put them through some non linear device.

Also, earth is not a sphere, it's an oblate spheroid, as was proven in the 18th(?) century by comparing solar noon on pendulum clocks near the equator and comparing them to clocks at higher latitudes. This is due to the rotation of the earth. There is also a distinct wobble in the motion as well as a lot of ringing. More partials!
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2307176 - 07/25/14 09:21 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: pyropaul]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
As I posted into another thread, just put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x) into google, select horizontal zoom and zoom out. The "beats" that you hear are an amplitude modulation effect. If you put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x)- essentially a major 12th that's off by 1Hz, you will still see an amplitude modulation (that you can also hear as beats). So you can tune any interval with pure sinewave. Of course sin(A) + sin(B) is "combinatronics". You don't need partials to tune, you just need to remove any amplitude modulation to zero.

Paul.


After much thought and experimentation, I agree with you and BDB. It is quite possible to tune, for example, a major third made up of two pure sine waves. The math, and the physics, are trivial.

While piano strings are messy affairs, whether or not they consist of partials does not affect the ability to tune, just the choice of what to listen to when tuning. Amplitude modulation rules!

Top
#2307177 - 07/25/14 09:23 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
This is science and technology and not democratie nor religion. Here there are some who know and some who don't know.

Here the knowledge is the master and the ignorance is the slave.


So far, I have not read any post that shows ignorance, only different approaches.

Top
#2307193 - 07/25/14 10:17 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Saying partials don't exist is ignorance, is denying the existence of iH, is denying the existence of different types of octaves.

This very thread would not exist!

This is not only ignorance but also non sense!
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307198 - 07/25/14 10:42 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: pyropaul]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
As I posted into another thread, just put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x) into google, select horizontal zoom and zoom out. The "beats" that you hear are an amplitude modulation effect. If you put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x)- essentially a major 12th that's off by 1Hz, you will still see an amplitude modulation (that you can also hear as beats).

I must disagree that you can hear the beat you see in the graph of (4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x) in google. When you zoom back far enough to see several of the 1Hz cycles, you do see what looks like amplitude modulation, but there is an important difference. True amplitude modulation is based on a single carrier frequency that is modulated by some lower frequency. The loudness of the resulting carrier (assuming the carrier is in the audio range) is the RMS value of the signal and in the case of a single modulated carrier the RMS value is directly proportional to the peak-to-peak amplitude. As the envelope goes up and down so does the loudness of the sound, and therefore you can hear the beat.

But when you graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x), the RMS value remains constant even though the peak-to-peak envelope of the waveform is changing. That is because the phase relationship between the two "carriers" is changing. As long as there is no non-linear distortion in the sound reaching your ears, you will not hear a 1Hz "beat" when listening to sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x). If you do hear a slight beat it is because of some non-linearity in the sound system.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself which frequency will sound like it is beating? Will it be sin(4.4*pi*x) or sin(6.61*pi*x), or both of them, or will it be sin(13.2*pi*x)? If these were typical piano tones (not pure sinewaves) then sin(13.2*pi*x) is the one that will appear to be beating as the first coincident partial. But in the case of pure sinewaves there is no sin(13.2*pi*x) present. So it can't beat in the same way it does with piano notes.

One more difference is that the waveform envelope that you want to call a beat is not actually sinusoidal. But it is sinusoidal in the case of graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x). That should be a clue that something very different is going on.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2307262 - 07/26/14 05:26 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1940
Loc: Suffolk, England
I asked a colleague, an electronics engineer, about combinatorics yesterday. He asked why and then his immediate suggestion was impulse waves.

Here is the response of a concert hall to an impulse like a gunshot.



See the similarity to those plots of piano notes?

More on concert hall acoustics.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2307274 - 07/26/14 07:30 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
pyropaul Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/16/10
Posts: 186
Loc: Montreal
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
As I posted into another thread, just put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x) into google, select horizontal zoom and zoom out. The "beats" that you hear are an amplitude modulation effect. If you put graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x)- essentially a major 12th that's off by 1Hz, you will still see an amplitude modulation (that you can also hear as beats).

I must disagree that you can hear the beat you see in the graph of (4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x) in google. When you zoom back far enough to see several of the 1Hz cycles, you do see what looks like amplitude modulation, but there is an important difference. True amplitude modulation is based on a single carrier frequency that is modulated by some lower frequency. The loudness of the resulting carrier (assuming the carrier is in the audio range) is the RMS value of the signal and in the case of a single modulated carrier the RMS value is directly proportional to the peak-to-peak amplitude. As the envelope goes up and down so does the loudness of the sound, and therefore you can hear the beat.

But when you graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x), the RMS value remains constant even though the peak-to-peak envelope of the waveform is changing. That is because the phase relationship between the two "carriers" is changing. As long as there is no non-linear distortion in the sound reaching your ears, you will not hear a 1Hz "beat" when listening to sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(6.61*pi*x). If you do hear a slight beat it is because of some non-linearity in the sound system.

Another way to look at it is to ask yourself which frequency will sound like it is beating? Will it be sin(4.4*pi*x) or sin(6.61*pi*x), or both of them, or will it be sin(13.2*pi*x)? If these were typical piano tones (not pure sinewaves) then sin(13.2*pi*x) is the one that will appear to be beating as the first coincident partial. But in the case of pure sinewaves there is no sin(13.2*pi*x) present. So it can't beat in the same way it does with piano notes.

One more difference is that the waveform envelope that you want to call a beat is not actually sinusoidal. But it is sinusoidal in the case of graph sin(4.4*pi*x)+sin(4.41*pi*x). That should be a clue that something very different is going on.


When I use Audacity to generate 440Hz + 661Hz, I hear a variation in loudness at about 0.5Hz, not 1Hz. I think the RMS figures are a red herring since what time period do you average over? A sine has zero average amplitude over the period of one cycle, but it certainly transfers power that is given by the RMS value. I know that non-linearity will introduce distortion (essentially you get a multiplication operator which does produce sidebands) and I know that sin(A)+sin(B) is not the same as true AM. What I hear when I listen to the 440Hz+661Hz is both frequencies varying in loudness - it's not the same sensation as beating partials, but it can be heard and you can definitely tune sinewaves that are integer multiples of each other - you just adjust for maximum "smoothness". It is not the same as beats, but it can be heard. Really the argument was that it is impossible to "tune" two sines - this is definitely not true. As for the other argument that you can't hear beats in a single string due to iH - an extreme example of this is a badly shaped bell where the partials are all over the map and you get all sorts of complex beats produced that are very audible.

Paul.

Top
#2307308 - 07/26/14 09:55 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Here is a sound file of two pairs of two simultaneous sine waves - the first pair is 440/883Hz for 5.6 seconds, and the second pair is 440/880 for 5.6 seconds.

One can CLEARLY hear the 3bps of the first pair and nothing in the second pair. It would be easy to tune using pure sine waves.

This file is amenable to discrete FFT analysis using 2^18 samples at 48kHz. I measured the samples at 440.0000, 882.9999, and 880.0000 Hz respectively. The samples were recorded at -8db and the noise floor is -160db. There is no distortion or non-linearity in the recording above the noise floor in the frequency range of interest.

Edit: This is a good test of your audio system. It may be that what I hear, and you will hear, IS non-linearity in the reproducing system, including your ears. It doesn't matter though. If you can hear it, you can tune it.


Edited by prout (07/26/14 03:20 PM)

Top
#2307318 - 07/26/14 10:35 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Try any other intervals, to see if you can still hear the 'beat'--they are not as audible with 5ths, or any other tuning interval as with the octave example.

Here is an online tone generator for those with curiosity and want to play around for themselves; open up two windows and play around with the distances between the two tones: http://onlinetonegenerator.com
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307344 - 07/26/14 11:59 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: A443
Try any other intervals, to see if you can still hear the 'beat'--they are not as audible with 5ths, or any other tuning interval as with the octave example.

Here is an online tone generator for those with curiosity and want to play around for themselves; open up two windows and play around with the distances between the two tones: http://onlinetonegenerator.com
Here is a file of 440Hz beating against 663Hz, followed by 440Hz beating against 660Hz. The result is clearly audible - more so than in the 440-883-880 example above.

In this example, you can hear the resultant at 223Hz and 220Hz as well. These exist in your brain.

The math clearly shows that amplitude variations are possible (Not amplitude modulation as I stated in a previous post - my bad - as an old amateur radio operator I should know better!). The physics show no such variations. Yet, we still hear it.

Hence my point about "truth', 'existence', and observation. You can choose to 'believe' what you hear or see, or you just accept it and use it to do your job.

The recording parameters are the same as the previously posted recording.

Edit: I also have a recording of F3A3 sine waves beating at 6.93bps and 2.93bps.



Edited by prout (07/26/14 12:01 PM)

Top
#2307346 - 07/26/14 12:01 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Here is a sound file of two pairs of two simultaneous sine waves - the first pair is 440/883Hz for 5.6 seconds, and the second pair is 440/880 for 5.6 seconds.

One can CLEARLY hear the 3bps of the first pair and nothing in the second pair. It would be easy to tune using pure sine waves.

This file is amendable to discrete FFT analysis using 2^18 samples at 48kHz. I measured the samples at 440.0000, 882.9999, and 880.0000 Hz respectively. The samples were recorded at -8db and the noise floor is -160db. There is no distortion or non-linearity in the recording above the noise floor in the frequency range of interest.

Edit: This is a good test of your audio system. It may be that what I hear, and you will hear, IS non-linearity in the reproducing system, including your ears. It doesn't matter though. If you can hear it, you can tune it.


There are beats, with almost all intervals, but I wonder if they are not simply due to our digital equipment .

It should be done with an analog synthétiser to be sure, I believe.

I am lost in your explanations an acronyms so this is just a guess.

I usedd http://onlinetonegenerator.com binaural beats.


Edited by Olek (07/26/14 12:02 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307347 - 07/26/14 12:03 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: prout
Here is a sound file of two pairs of two simultaneous sine waves - the first pair is 440/883Hz for 5.6 seconds, and the second pair is 440/880 for 5.6 seconds.

One can CLEARLY hear the 3bps of the first pair and nothing in the second pair. It would be easy to tune using pure sine waves.

This file is amendable to discrete FFT analysis using 2^18 samples at 48kHz. I measured the samples at 440.0000, 882.9999, and 880.0000 Hz respectively. The samples were recorded at -8db and the noise floor is -160db. There is no distortion or non-linearity in the recording above the noise floor in the frequency range of interest.

Edit: This is a good test of your audio system. It may be that what I hear, and you will hear, IS non-linearity in the reproducing system, including your ears. It doesn't matter though. If you can hear it, you can tune it.


There are beats, with almost all intervals, but I wonder if they are not simply due to our digital equipment .

It should be done with an analog synthétiser to be sure, I believe.

I am lost in your explanations an acronyms so this is just a guess.



They could be, and most likely is the case. Nevertheless, the math shows that a variation in volume should occur, and that is what we hear, whether or not it exists! smirk

Top
#2307390 - 07/26/14 02:43 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
I don't know if these sinusoidal waves are really sinusoidal.

But, to circunvent this problem, there is an experiment that I have posted in another thread. It uses an A 440 tuning fork, which has a very very weak 2nd partial and practically no fourth partial.

1) If you sound the fork and play F4 in the piano, there are no beats.
But if you play A4 and F4 in the piano, there are beats.

2) If you sound the fork and play F3, there are no beats.
But if you play A4 and F3 there are beats.

3) If you sound the fork and play F2 there are beats.
If tou play A4 and F2 there are beats.

The conclusion is obvious. The fork has a very very weak 2nd partial and the beats with the fifth partial of F3 are not audible. The fork has practically no fourth partial, so there are no beats with the fifth partial of F4.

But the fork has a strong first partial, which clearly beats with the fifth partial of F2.

The piano note A4 produce beats with all three notes F4, F3, and F2 because A4 has audible 1st, 2nd and 4th partials.


Beats are produced by coincident partials.


Every piano tuner knows that.

Beats at the fundamental/fundamental level are produced only by unisons.





Edited by Gadzar (07/26/14 02:47 PM)
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307395 - 07/26/14 03:06 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
I don't know if these sinusoidal waves are really sinusoidal.



They are sinusoidal to the extent that there is no harmonic distortion in the waveform greater than 152db below the fundamental. This level of distortion is so ridiculously low as to border on the absurd, so I can say with confidence that the waves are sinusoidal. Any person who has analyzed the posted recording should achieve the same results within their device's measurement error limits.

Edit: You should understand that my interest in tuning, and the physics-based math that predicts it, is based on measuring partials. I just don't find it useful or helpful or fruitful to argue about the absolute existence of something. It is as if your universe would come falling down about your ears if someone contradicts a belief you have held for a lifetime. Who cares. I use partial theory because I find it useful - BDB does not, and it appears he has not suffered a lack of clientele as a result.



Edited by prout (07/26/14 03:13 PM)

Top
#2307417 - 07/26/14 04:34 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Each time we talk about different kinds of octaves, we have BDB posting against its existence.

But I know several tuners that make great tunings and they have ever heard a word about iH. Though they don't tune true ET. And When I try to explain them what ET is they just don't understand and they don't want to know.

I guess this happens with BDB, he just refuses to understand.

When I sound the fork with F3 I hear no beats at all, if his combinatorics were true, I should hear beats.


Why to deny the obvious?

I know tuners who tune A3 to an A4 fork, or C4 to a C5 fork.

Someone who knows about partials and iH would know this carries an error, but as they know nothing about partials and iH, they say "this works fine for them".

This really is ignorance, disguised as a "different approach".




Edited by Gadzar (07/26/14 04:37 PM)
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307423 - 07/26/14 04:55 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
Each time we talk about different kinds of octaves, we have BDB posting against its existence.

But I know several tuners that make great tunings and they have ever heard a word about iH. Though they don't tune true ET. And When I try to explain them what ET is they just don't understand and they don't want to know.

I guess this happens with BDB, he just refuses to understand.

When I sound the fork with F3 I hear no beats at all, if his combinatorics were true, I should hear beats.


Why to deny the obvious?

I know tuners who tune A3 to an A4 fork, or C4 to a C5 fork.

Someone who knows about partials and iH would know this carries an error, but as they know nothing about partials and iH, they say "this works fine for them".

This really is ignorance, disguised as a "different approach".




I get nervous when you use a word such as 'true'. What is 'true' today is 'false' tomorrow' as theories change.

Do you have any theories regarding whether the hammer or the soundboard has more influence on the tone of a note? Several people have given me ideas. I would value your input as well.

Top
#2307441 - 07/26/14 05:36 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
What matters is what is true now. What was true is often no more and what will be is not yet!

Hammers or soundboard? I don't know. This is out of my knowledge. I am familiar with voicing hammers but I've never worked on a soundboard.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307448 - 07/26/14 05:44 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Raphael, what I think is that even if octave types are interesting to have some reperes, t-he way we are dealing with them by comparing beats is not so accurate, an also say nothing about the "congruence" or the "consonance" of the said octave.

It is a liberation for the ex ETD tuner to be allowed to tune "his octaves" an not restraining from the start so to use "compromising"

There is then some octave quality that have no particular meaning to me as an octave, partials or no. stretched artificially from the start, I would say, while a similar "type" listened differently sound better in the end. tell me why ?

Octaves are very strong intervals, we can have that strength expressing himself while tuning.





Edited by Olek (07/26/14 05:47 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307458 - 07/26/14 06:17 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Olek
Raphael, what I think is that even if octave types are interesting to have some reperes, t-he way we are dealing with them by comparing beats is not so accurate, an also say nothing about the "congruence" or the "consonance" of the said octave.

It is a liberation for the ex ETD tuner to be allowed to tune "his octaves" an not restraining from the start so to use "compromising"

There is then some octave quality that have no particular meaning to me as an octave, partials or no. stretched artificially from the start, I would say, while a similar "type" listened differently sound better in the end. tell me why ?

Octaves are very strong intervals, we can have that strength expressing himself while tuning.





I agree that the 'tone' or 'quality' or 'congruence' of an interval, especially the octave, should be more important than forcing it to be a 6:3 or 4:2 octave with some artificial added stretch because the ETD told you to do it.

edit: Also, the sustain of the octave should be considered by the ETD tuner, and is, I am sure, by the aural tuner.

I am finding that the relative partial strengths require that one listen to the overall tone, not the width of the octave.


Edited by prout (07/26/14 06:19 PM)

Top
#2307463 - 07/26/14 06:23 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
I never tune thinking on the kind of octave I am tuning. I tune ( downwards) a "pure" octave, then I listen the fifth, the 4th, the M3, etc. and correct if something sounds no right. When I'm done down to A0 I play runs of M10ths or 17ths looking for notes that stick out. Etc.

But knowing about different kinds of octaves, about partials and iH help me understand what I am hearing and why the intervals sound like they do.

I must say that I have never looked for consonance of the whole instrument, I focus my attention on intervals.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307469 - 07/26/14 06:55 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 625
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
I stand corrected. When I listen though headphones I hear beats with the sine wave examples. Interesting though is that 440/663 beats at 6bps and not 3bps.
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2307480 - 07/26/14 07:28 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Chris Leslie]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1940
Loc: Suffolk, England
3 x 440 = 1320 v 2 x 663 = 1326 ?

Periodic coincidences if no harmonics/partials.


Edited by Withindale (07/26/14 07:50 PM)
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2307506 - 07/26/14 08:51 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City

Prout, can you post sound files for 440 alone and 883 alone?
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307521 - 07/26/14 09:37 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Prout,

I´ve listened to your 440/883 and 440/663 samples. Yes I hear periodic variations at 3 bps and 6 bps respectively, very weak variations in volume (amplitude? or intensity?). Not really beats.

If you want to hear real beats, using the tone generator suggested by A443, hear at a 440/880/442/884 you will hear:

wa WA wa WA wa WA wa WA wa WA wa WA

that is a 2 bps plus a 4 bps.

and 440/1320/442/1326 will sound with three different beats at 2, 4 and 6 bps.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307534 - 07/26/14 09:51 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 625
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Rafael, try to use the simulator application I sent you and a few others. Adjust the relative partial intensities so that P1 only is greater than 0, select no iH, select the two notes you wish to hear and then "play". Then modify one of the notes by small changes in pitch. Beats will magically happen at the frequencies prout has indicated for example.

If you could manually add the two sine arrays you would get long wave hills and valleys at the beat frequency. Beats are audible because of periodic variation in intensity.

The sounds are from sine waves produced by mathematically generating an exact sine array, then converting to sound via the application.


Edited by Chris Leslie (07/26/14 10:03 PM)
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2307540 - 07/26/14 09:59 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: Olek
Raphael, what I think is that even if octave types are interesting to have some reperes, t-he way we are dealing with them by comparing beats is not so accurate, an also say nothing about the "congruence" or the "consonance" of the said octave.

It is a liberation for the ex ETD tuner to be allowed to tune "his octaves" an not restraining from the start so to use "compromising"

There is then some octave quality that have no particular meaning to me as an octave, partials or no. stretched artificially from the start, I would say, while a similar "type" listened differently sound better in the end. tell me why ?

Octaves are very strong intervals, we can have that strength expressing himself while tuning.





I agree that the 'tone' or 'quality' or 'congruence' of an interval, especially the octave, should be more important than forcing it to be a 6:3 or 4:2 octave with some artificial added stretch because the ETD told you to do it.

edit: Also, the sustain of the octave should be considered by the ETD tuner, and is, I am sure, by the aural tuner.

I am finding that the relative partial strengths require that one listen to the overall tone, not the width of the octave.


forcing the octave to be a 6:3 or 4:2 ?

artificial stretch because the ETD told you ?

In the first place the ETD forces me nothing! I set the stretch points to be what I want them to be!

In Verituner it is me that decides how to stretch the A3A4 octave. I can specify a 4:2 octave for a spinet and a 4:2 50% 0, 6:3 50% 0 for a concert grand, or whatever I desire for a given piano! It is not the ETD who tells me, it is me who programmes the ETD to what I want.

In the second place, when tuning aurally, as I said before, I do not think in terms of 6:3, 4:2 octaves! I think in terms of A3D4 exactly beating the same as D4A4 for a console for example. Or even as some tuners do (Mr. Capurso maybe?) tune A3D4 slightly slower than D4A4. Or A3D4 sligtly faster than D4A4 for a concert grand. All this of course with a clean sounding A3A4 octave.

Each time you tune fourths that beat faster than fifths, you are tuning wide 4:2 octaves, is this forcing the octaves with some artificial added stretch?

What I can see with all this, is that you are focused on doing maths, not on piano tuning.

I agree with Olek, consonance of the whole instrument is the goal. Maths are only a tool to understand what we are doing. But I admit that we can do it even if we do not know the maths involved.

PS: BDB can use beats to tune, even if he says partials do not exist and beats are produced by fundamentals of notes.



Edited by Gadzar (07/26/14 10:13 PM)
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307542 - 07/26/14 10:08 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Gadzar Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/15/06
Posts: 1730
Loc: Mexico City
Thanks Chris, I have not yet seen your simulator.

I will try it.
_________________________
Rafael Melo
Piano Technician
rafaelmelo@afinacionpianos.com.mx

Serving Mexico City and suburbs.

http://www.afinacionpianos.com.mx

Top
#2307558 - 07/26/14 10:40 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Gadzar]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Gadzar
[q
I agree with Olek, consonance of the whole instrument is the goal. Maths are only a tool to understand what we are doing. But I admit that we can do it even if we do not know the maths.


I agree wholeheartedly, but:

The analysis I am doing allows me to see every sound produced by a struck string - key noise, keybed noise, hammer and damper noise, true harmonics existing with nearly coincident partials, pitch change during decay, bridge rocking, longitudinal waves, longitudinal/transverse coupling, and other things I can't identify. All these noises add up to the unique sound of a piano. The math helps me to predict what will happen when I choose to change the pitch of a string. Doing it aurally is easier, but I want to understand the underlying processes.

Top
#2307591 - 07/26/14 11:52 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Chris Leslie]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
I stand corrected. When I listen though headphones I hear beats with the sine wave examples. Interesting though is that 440/663 beats at 6bps and not 3bps.

It makes perfect sense. What you are hearing is the weak 3rd harmonic of 440 (1320) beating with the second harmonic of 663 (1326). The difference is 6 Hz. And the fact that you can hear the beat at all shows that the generated tones are not exactly sine waves.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2307623 - 07/27/14 02:45 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
DoelKees Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/01/10
Posts: 1723
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
I stand corrected. When I listen though headphones I hear beats with the sine wave examples. Interesting though is that 440/663 beats at 6bps and not 3bps.

It makes perfect sense. What you are hearing is the weak 3rd harmonic of 440 (1320) beating with the second harmonic of 663 (1326). The difference is 6 Hz. And the fact that you can hear the beat at all shows that the generated tones are not exactly sine waves.

Even if they were, they would no longer be pure sine waves after passing through your auditory processing wetware.

Kees

Top
#2307638 - 07/27/14 04:13 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1940
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: prout
In your experience, are relative partial strengths primarily a function of hammer voicing or soundboard/bridge impedance/resonance ?

Nicholas Giordano, a Professor at Purdue University, looked into this a few years ago. Google for his web page.

Based on his experimental work, he says the soundboard and the bridge, have a big effect on the strength of partials. He summarises his results in his layman's book, The Physics of the Piano (chapter 7).

These articles from the Purdue website go into more detail:
Sound Production by a Vibrating Soundboard: Experiment
Simple Model of a Piano Soundboard

The 1996 Giordano & Korty paper describes some of the experiments. It was on the web but the link seems to have gone. It mentions longitudinal wave effects at the bridge. As I recall they measured string vibrations and sound pressure from the soundboard. This interesting article Modeling and simulation of a grand piano gives the reference and many others.
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2307693 - 07/27/14 09:41 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Withindale]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: prout
In your experience, are relative partial strengths primarily a function of hammer voicing or soundboard/bridge impedance/resonance ?

Nicholas Giordano, a Professor at Purdue University, looked into this a few years ago. Google for his web page.

Based on his experimental work, he says the soundboard and the bridge, have a big effect on the strength of partials. He summarises his results in his layman's book, The Physics of the Piano (chapter 7).

These articles from the Purdue website go into more detail:
Sound Production by a Vibrating Soundboard: Experiment
Simple Model of a Piano Soundboard

The 1996 Giordano & Korty paper describes some of the experiments. It was on the web but the link seems to have gone. It mentions longitudinal wave effects at the bridge. As I recall they measured string vibrations and sound pressure from the soundboard. This interesting article Modeling and simulation of a grand piano gives the reference and many others.


Thanks Ian,

I read Chabassier's paper just after it was published, which is what got me started on this journey. I just skimmed and will fully read the other two Giordano papers. Interesting stuff.

Edit: It strikes me that, given the wild variation in partial strengths over which the tuner has little (voicing) or no (soundboard) control, it begs the question:

If aural tuners insensibly take these partial variations into consideration when tuning, do the most advanced ETDs do so as well?




Edited by prout (07/27/14 09:47 AM)

Top
#2307704 - 07/27/14 10:26 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: DoelKees]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
I stand corrected. When I listen though headphones I hear beats with the sine wave examples. Interesting though is that 440/663 beats at 6bps and not 3bps.

It makes perfect sense. What you are hearing is the weak 3rd harmonic of 440 (1320) beating with the second harmonic of 663 (1326). The difference is 6 Hz. And the fact that you can hear the beat at all shows that the generated tones are not exactly sine waves.

Even if they were, they would no longer be pure sine waves after passing through your auditory processing wetware.

Kees


Wetware is the answer, along with a bit of crap from the electronic to air transcription, but the waveforms themselves are as pure as the driven snow. This image is the FFT of my laptop's sound card reproduction of the wave file. It is pretty clean (<-90db) in the 1320-1326Hz range.



The ab initio 6bps is a result of the fact that, in exactly one second, exactly 6 sine maxima will occur with two co-existing sine waves of 440 and 663 Hz. It has nothing to do with harmonics.

Top
#2307711 - 07/27/14 10:41 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: prout
The math helps me to predict what will happen when I choose to change the pitch of a string. Doing it aurally is easier, but I want to understand the underlying processes.
Prout, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to make those recordings. That was helpful...but, actually, for something other than what it appears! whistle

When I was doing my experiments/research in this area in the 90s, my approach differed from prout's: I started one sine wave, and adjusted the other one on the fly (i.e., faster/slower). This is how a piano would be tuned, so it made sense to me at the time. The difference is substantial: when the sine waves are not lined up perfectly, they don't beat like prouts example. Furthermore, since we are mainly dealing with tri-chords on the piano, I was using 6 sine waves (i.e., 3 x lower pitch + 3 higher pitch) all with slight different/random timing--as this is how it occurs in the piano. Even if the string levelling is really great, it is never as perfect as prout's alignment in the example.

Everyone can give this a try with prout's 440 vs. 663/660 [7.9 cent difference].
http://onlinetonegenerator.com
Open 6 tabs.
Turn 3 randomly on at 440, and the other three randomly on at 663.

It is likely that you will hear a "waver." If you do, randomly turn different tabs off/on to change their alignment until it has more of a "pure" sound. It is possible to make the 663 sound "pure/in-tune" like the 660 example. And in contrast, it is also possible to give the 660 example some "waver" to sound more like the 663 example.

So, I maintain, that it is possible to tune this--and, BTW, I do use this method of listening when tuning, but only in part--however, this tuning method is different from feeling/hear beats and setting the alignment/misalignment of coincident partials. It is also the listening technique that I use to identify/hear hammer fitting issues. But, I'd like to point out that their physicality is different. What we are talking about is different from a string partials, which has a kind of auditory mass that we can also feel with the rest of our body (i.e., like a big bass subwoofer). These resultant partials, which is I guess what BDB is referring to as combinatorics, don't have the same acoustic mass. They also respond differently, based on their alignment, than coincident partials would.

I view this phenomenon as the anti-partial (or shadow-partial).

Coincident partials, when close enough in frequency, have a kind of acoustic gravity that is able to pull another coincident partial towards itself and resonate pure. This in and of itself, is a very interesting and peculiar process. Anti-partials don't have this same acoustic "mass," and as such, doesn't have the "gravity" to pull anything towards itself [which is why, IMHO, they function differently]: anti-partials resonate without the associated body-feel, and are often perceived of as acoustic "auras." <----this is something you can pick up on using the website to generate 6 sine wave; you'll perceive something is happing "up there," but it is more "ghostly" resonance, than physically present.

BTW, this is one of the 2 main reasons, IMHO, why an acoustic performance differs from that of a recording. In the recording, the microphones are picking up the relative resonances going on in the sound, but not necessarily the difference in "mass" behind them. Listening to the recording through earphones, for example, reproduces all of this noise/resonances in the same manner--the acoustic shadow-partials in the performance are represented as "real" partials in the recording, which slightly changes the perception of depth!!! shocked
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307722 - 07/27/14 10:55 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: prout

Wetware is the answer, along with a bit of crap from the electronic to air transcription, but the waveforms themselves are as pure as the driven snow.

The ab initio 6bps is a result of the fact that, in exactly one second, exactly 6 sine maxima will occur with two co-existing sine waves of 440 and 663 Hz. It has nothing to do with harmonics.

Those maxima you see in the total waveform do not represent anything the ear is necessary going to hear. An audible beat is a perceived variation in amplitude at a given frequency. It is not related to the peak values in the composite waveform. It is only coincidentally related in the simple case of two nearby sinewaves beating. If beats were a function of maxima in total waveforms, then how would it be possible for a person to correctly hear and count the beats in both the 4:2 and the 6:3 octaves as separate things?

I have no doubt that one can hear beats at 1320 when listening to your synthesized tones. The human ear is very sensitive. Even a very good sound system produces enough harmonic distortion to create the needed energy at 1320.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2307732 - 07/27/14 11:09 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
When we tune unisons, there is a "mode locking" that occurs when the pitch gets close since the strings are closely coupled. I think Oleg has a discussion of Viennese style tuning which illustrated this effect.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2307735 - 07/27/14 11:12 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
I think we need to separate the physics from the psychoacoustics. Remember, it is what we hear that's important. All of the physics is to help up get to a good sound from a very imperfect system.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2307743 - 07/27/14 11:26 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
A viennese style unison, BTW, is not really "mode locking"--I think it would be what Olek calls a "smiley unison;" one string is slightly sharp, and quickly gets pulled-in. I call this a "sustain unison." A viennese unison (i.e., a colour unison), like the Viennese themselves, is about internal conflict: there are three strings that are tuned in slightly increasing amounts ++,+,0 [in that order]. This unison struggles internally, which is what produces more colour, in the unison. This kind of unison has the most flexibility to move up/down with coincident partials of other note combinations. <----the Viennese piano builders have known about this for a long time; there was a period of time where their string lengths in the unison were purposefully cut at the bridge to increasing lengths, just like like that style of tuning. thumb yippie

The american DOA [dead on attack/arrival] unisons are great for a slightly bigger attack sound, but there is a sacrifice in the decay shape for doing so. "Attack unisons" are the least flexible in terms of the amount they are able to move to align with other coincident partials.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307756 - 07/27/14 11:49 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
Originally Posted By: prout

Wetware is the answer, along with a bit of crap from the electronic to air transcription, but the waveforms themselves are as pure as the driven snow.

The ab initio 6bps is a result of the fact that, in exactly one second, exactly 6 sine maxima will occur with two co-existing sine waves of 440 and 663 Hz. It has nothing to do with harmonics.

Those maxima you see in the total waveform do not represent anything the ear is necessary going to hear. An audible beat is a perceived variation in amplitude at a given frequency. It is not related to the peak values in the composite waveform. It is only coincidentally related in the simple case of two nearby sinewaves beating. If beats were a function of maxima in total waveforms, then how would it be possible for a person to correctly hear and count the beats in both the 4:2 and the 6:3 octaves as separate things?

I have no doubt that one can hear beats at 1320 when listening to your synthesized tones. The human ear is very sensitive. Even a very good sound system produces enough harmonic distortion to create the needed energy at 1320.


Yes, I agree that practically speaking, when tuning piano strings, I listen for and can hear partials beating in both the 4:2 and 6:3 octaves simultaneously.

As you say, the human ear is remarkably sensitive. As an amateur radio operator, I learned to use the Just Noticeable Difference ability to listen to Morse code operators that were transmitting close in frequency. It became easy to hear two or three conversations simultaneously and choose the one to which to listen.

Top
#2307759 - 07/27/14 11:53 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
Thanks for elucidating this point. The internal conflict in the Viennese unison fights with the mode lock, I think, giving more color to the sound. The unison locks and unlocks due to the tuning. I certainly agree with the comment on American style unisons. Everything sounds very dry without much singing quality.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2307764 - 07/27/14 12:05 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
pyropaul Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/16/10
Posts: 186
Loc: Montreal
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott

Those maxima you see in the total waveform do not represent anything the ear is necessary going to hear. An audible beat is a perceived variation in amplitude at a given frequency. It is not related to the peak values in the composite waveform. It is only coincidentally related in the simple case of two nearby sinewaves beating. If beats were a function of maxima in total waveforms, then how would it be possible for a person to correctly hear and count the beats in both the 4:2 and the 6:3 octaves as separate things?

I have no doubt that one can hear beats at 1320 when listening to your synthesized tones. The human ear is very sensitive. Even a very good sound system produces enough harmonic distortion to create the needed energy at 1320.


Come on Robert, you're a DSP/electronics guy (as am I) - this is patently false. If it was true (that you can't hear amplitude variations in a composite waveform), then there would be no market for tremolo pedals!

For anyone with Audacity, generate a 440Hz sine wave and then apply the tremolo filter with a "wet" level of 10% and a rate of 2Hz. See if you can hear anything. If you can't Robert is correct, if you can, then all the pedal makers are correct.

Of course beats are different since they give a 100% cancellation and are essentially equivalent to tremolo with a "wet" level of 100%. But so say we can't hear periodic amplitude variation in complex waves is just not true - though it does sound different. If it was not possible to hear this, then it would be impossible to tune two sines at integer ratios. For anyone with an analog synthesiser, they will quickly show how easy this is. No distortion is needed to achieve this, either.

Paul.

Top
#2307799 - 07/27/14 01:57 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: pyropaul]
Robert Scott Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/19/03
Posts: 283
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott

Those maxima you see in the total waveform do not represent anything the ear is necessary going to hear. An audible beat is a perceived variation in amplitude at a given frequency. It is not related to the peak values in the composite waveform. It is only coincidentally related in the simple case of two nearby sinewaves beating. If beats were a function of maxima in total waveforms, then how would it be possible for a person to correctly hear and count the beats in both the 4:2 and the 6:3 octaves as separate things?

I have no doubt that one can hear beats at 1320 when listening to your synthesized tones. The human ear is very sensitive. Even a very good sound system produces enough harmonic distortion to create the needed energy at 1320.


Come on Robert, you're a DSP/electronics guy (as am I) - this is patently false. If it was true (that you can't hear amplitude variations in a composite waveform), then there would be no market for tremolo pedals!

For anyone with Audacity, generate a 440Hz sine wave and then apply the tremolo filter with a "wet" level of 10% and a rate of 2Hz. See if you can hear anything. If you can't Robert is correct, if you can, then all the pedal makers are correct.

Of course beats are different since they give a 100% cancellation and are essentially equivalent to tremolo with a "wet" level of 100%. But so say we can't hear periodic amplitude variation in complex waves is just not true - though it does sound different. If it was not possible to hear this, then it would be impossible to tune two sines at integer ratios. For anyone with an analog synthesiser, they will quickly show how easy this is. No distortion is needed to achieve this, either.

Paul.

Paul, we are talking about two different kinds of amplitude here. The tremello effect you describe is an amplitude variation that is applied to the whole waveform, so the RMS power goes up and down just like the peak to peak level goes up and down, and of course it is a variation that can be heard, even if that variation is only 10% of the total.

However the peak to peak envelope variations seen in mixing 440 Hz with 663 Hz are not this kind of audible amplitude variation. Those peaks represent the result of the phase relationship between the two waveforms changing. The total energy remains constant, as does the energy in each component. Another way to illustrate this effect is to compare the graphs of cos(t)+cos(2t) and cos(t)+sin(2t). The first graph has a peak level of 2.0, while the peak level of the second graph is 1.76. Yet both waveforms will sound equally loud because they contain the same amount of energy at each of the two frequencies involved. The only thing that changed was the phase relationship between the two components which caused the peak to peak value to change.
_________________________
Robert Scott
Hopkins, Minnesota
http://www.tunelab-world.com

Top
#2307859 - 07/27/14 04:35 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: gynnis]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: gynnis
Thanks for elucidating this point. The internal conflict in the Viennese unison fights with the mode lock, I think, giving more color to the sound. The unison locks and unlocks due to the tuning. I certainly agree with the comment on American style unisons. Everything sounds very dry without much singing quality.

I think the problem is that it is not done on purpose , the "offocial" explanation is that as it will drift it is better to be that straight. And the loss of singing quality is corrected by using very forgiving hammers.

So that is mostly relate to a "way" of listening. But this is not only "Americacn way" mastering the string an pin so they stay where they are ask so much concentration the ear can get caught in a "listening mode" where the hardness is not noticed anymore.
The mistake in that concept is that if we do not know how to manage the thickening an the lengthening of the tone (phase lock) it does not install by himself by miracle, , if the unison are not "pushed" in a certain direction they can move later in any one, hence tone defects, whistlings , moanings, energy losses.

I worked today on a vertical that was tuned 3 years ago at last, and moved to my shop.

I hardly find really objectionable unisons, most of them are "locked" in "smiley" shape (I made a small video plucking the strings)
When I tapped the bridge pins the strings did raise in pitch, not the opposite. (I also made a video, before/after, while I don't know how good it is)
Hen, lightly tapping on the pins, the tone of the tap tells if the pin bottoms or no. The ones that do not transfer their little loss of firmness in the string (no false beats, just some parasitic noises and loss of clarity for the tone body)





Edited by Olek (07/27/14 04:37 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307872 - 07/27/14 05:11 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: Olek
I think the problem is that it is not done on purpose , the "offocial" explanation is that as it will drift it is better to be that straight. And the loss of singing quality is corrected by using very forgiving hammers.
LOL...well, the "official" explanation is that they start on the R, then tune the C with a "good sound," and then tune the L to the C with "a good sound." Most of them think they are tuning DOA, but that is far from what is really happening. Much translation and measurement is required to understand what is really happening.

A "good sound" is one that swells melodically/fully once and is pulled in solidly before it has the opportunity to ever create a second wave. This is why I denote the one string sharp method as a Sustain unison (i.e., it pulls-out/increases the sustain). The Viennese unison, with its two strings sharp in increasing amounts, creates a broader/fuzzy attack tone, but it is much more flexible in pitch. It is also more colourful: the back-and-forth internal struggle to lock onto the mode doesn't happen in one predictable direction like the sustain unison.

Happy union tunings to all: <---this is where the real magic happens!
whome yippie
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307874 - 07/27/14 05:23 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Robert Scott]
pyropaul Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/16/10
Posts: 186
Loc: Montreal
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
Originally Posted By: Robert Scott

Those maxima you see in the total waveform do not represent anything the ear is necessary going to hear. An audible beat is a perceived variation in amplitude at a given frequency. It is not related to the peak values in the composite waveform. It is only coincidentally related in the simple case of two nearby sinewaves beating. If beats were a function of maxima in total waveforms, then how would it be possible for a person to correctly hear and count the beats in both the 4:2 and the 6:3 octaves as separate things?

I have no doubt that one can hear beats at 1320 when listening to your synthesized tones. The human ear is very sensitive. Even a very good sound system produces enough harmonic distortion to create the needed energy at 1320.


Come on Robert, you're a DSP/electronics guy (as am I) - this is patently false. If it was true (that you can't hear amplitude variations in a composite waveform), then there would be no market for tremolo pedals!

For anyone with Audacity, generate a 440Hz sine wave and then apply the tremolo filter with a "wet" level of 10% and a rate of 2Hz. See if you can hear anything. If you can't Robert is correct, if you can, then all the pedal makers are correct.

Of course beats are different since they give a 100% cancellation and are essentially equivalent to tremolo with a "wet" level of 100%. But so say we can't hear periodic amplitude variation in complex waves is just not true - though it does sound different. If it was not possible to hear this, then it would be impossible to tune two sines at integer ratios. For anyone with an analog synthesiser, they will quickly show how easy this is. No distortion is needed to achieve this, either.

Paul.

Paul, we are talking about two different kinds of amplitude here. The tremello effect you describe is an amplitude variation that is applied to the whole waveform, so the RMS power goes up and down just like the peak to peak level goes up and down, and of course it is a variation that can be heard, even if that variation is only 10% of the total.

However the peak to peak envelope variations seen in mixing 440 Hz with 663 Hz are not this kind of audible amplitude variation. Those peaks represent the result of the phase relationship between the two waveforms changing. The total energy remains constant, as does the energy in each component. Another way to illustrate this effect is to compare the graphs of cos(t)+cos(2t) and cos(t)+sin(2t). The first graph has a peak level of 2.0, while the peak level of the second graph is 1.76. Yet both waveforms will sound equally loud because they contain the same amount of energy at each of the two frequencies involved. The only thing that changed was the phase relationship between the two components which caused the peak to peak value to change.


I still don't agree with you Robert. There's no difference in RMS power between the case of 440+441Hz (which most definitely beats) and the case of 440+663Hz. The average, integrated from 0 to some time t is the same, but the instantaneous power level does vary as per the amplitude variation (which is due to the constantly changing phase between the two sines).

In the tremolo case, the average power of some period of time is also constant, despite the amplitude modulation. What do you hear in the case of 440+661Hz? If it is an artifact of the non-lineararities or our hearing system, it doesn't mean that it's not perceptible? A simple bit of DSP would also be able to recover the envelope modulation too so I'm sure a machine would be able to "tune" two sines using only this, rather than directly computing the pitches.

As for hearing beats in 4:2 and 6:3 octaves, there's more than just those two sets of beats to hear, though they are the predominant ones and a tuner applies a mental bandpass filter to focus in on the partials of interest. Isn't the goal of "maximum consonance" effectively trying to reduce the overall amplitude modulation (coming from all the beating partials) to a minimum? Maybe it's easier for a human to do this since it's possible to hear all the partials simultaneously (though a machine could also be programmed to do this as well).

Paul.


Edited by pyropaul (07/27/14 05:24 PM)
Edit Reason: typo

Top
#2307887 - 07/27/14 05:55 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: pyropaul]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: pyropaul

Isn't the goal of "maximum consonance" effectively trying to reduce the overall amplitude modulation (coming from all the beating partials) to a minimum? Maybe it's easier for a human to do this since it's possible to hear all the partials simultaneously (though a machine could also be programmed to do this as well).

Paul.


I would say yes. This is the minimum entropy state so desired by all of us. To get a machine, as opposed to a human, to do this requires, as I am attempting, and ETDs that determine the actual partials, not just the iH, of every note, to compute a minimum entropy solution by effectively 'listening' to every note of the piano simultaneously.

Top
#2307898 - 07/27/14 06:58 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: prout
To get a machine, as opposed to a human, to do this requires, as I am attempting, and ETDs that determine the actual partials, not just the iH, of every note, to compute a minimum entropy solution by effectively 'listening' to every note of the piano simultaneously.
Prout, in order to do that, you are going to need to compensate for the amount/distance that the notes are able to be pulled in different directions, in each part of the piano, in order to create "maximum consonance." The current software seems to look at a theoretical single sine waves in terms of coincident beat rate amount and how these amounts should be equally smoothed out over the range of the piano. However, that is not our only sense of what makes the piano sound in-tune. The piano's ability to pull itself in tune in different directions is probably more important--and doing so in an "equal" manner.

In general, I appreciate the Verituner's clean equally beating approach to everything, but that doesn't factor in how an aural tuner is able to maximise resonance in the process. The next evolution in ETD software refinements, IMHO, needs to address equal resonance as well as equal pull.

For example, I can tune an ET M3 in such as way [with a nice 12th/15th, and a wide colour unison] that it gets pulled pure after a few beats. <----this ability/control and resonance is completely missing from current software design (i.e., unless I'm not using it correctly).
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2307907 - 07/27/14 07:31 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
BTW here is that video I took while making the tone cleaner.
used a cell phone, so the tone is not ideal but it does not saturates so much.
But there is a fan in the back of the shop, I think it creates some impression of false beats in some cases. I only have one string on those, that have a slow - discrete -false beat right string of A5 I think)
The result of resetting the pins is clearly hears on the few notes near the break. once done on all the section, I had a way more recent instrument



May be you can hear the different tone when tapping depending of the pins, and some strings moving.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307909 - 07/27/14 07:32 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: pyropaul

Isn't the goal of "maximum consonance" effectively trying to reduce the overall amplitude modulation (coming from all the beating partials) to a minimum? Maybe it's easier for a human to do this since it's possible to hear all the partials simultaneously (though a machine could also be programmed to do this as well).

Paul.


I would say yes. This is the minimum entropy state so desired by all of us. To get a machine, as opposed to a human, to do this requires, as I am attempting, and ETDs that determine the actual partials, not just the iH, of every note, to compute a minimum entropy solution by effectively 'listening' to every note of the piano simultaneously.


That is refreshing to read that there is some explanation on why "listening" can differ. Thanks.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2307977 - 07/28/14 12:56 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
Well this topic has digressed. I don't see many posters weighing in on which of these two components; hammer or soundboard, is more significant in the energy balance of the partials contained in a piano waveform. I think the hammer is half of the whole shebang.

I do think the discussion of unison types needs to be defined by where in the compass "styles" of unison tuning may apply. In the wound notes almost all of the unisons will have some mis-matched partial pairs. The strings just aren't perfect enough to enable DOA unisons. Coupling is very strong in the long strings and becomes less powerful as you ascend the compass. So you can't depend on coupling to "pull" things together in the treble.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2308020 - 07/28/14 05:52 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Ed , certainly lighter strings may have less effect on all that mass of the bridge and soundboard.
I think what I listen to is the result of the coupling in terms of spectra evolving in time.

Once differentiated from beats , false or real we can chase for the sustain and +- try to place it in a "hot spot" where there is participation from some parts of the piano elsewhere, the most the best I suppose.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308042 - 07/28/14 07:50 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: A443
Originally Posted By: Olek
I think the problem is that it is not done on purpose , the "offocial" explanation is that as it will drift it is better to be that straight. And the loss of singing quality is corrected by using very forgiving hammers.
LOL...well, the "official" explanation is that they start on the R, then tune the C with a "good sound," and then tune the L to the C with "a good sound." Most of them think they are tuning DOA, but that is far from what is really happening. Much translation and measurement is required to understand what is really happening.

A "good sound" is one that swells melodically/fully once and is pulled in solidly before it has the opportunity to ever create a second wave. This is why I denote the one string sharp method as a Sustain unison (i.e., it pulls-out/increases the sustain). The Viennese unison, with its two strings sharp in increasing amounts, creates a broader/fuzzy attack tone, but it is much more flexible in pitch. It is also more colourful: the back-and-forth internal struggle to lock onto the mode doesn't happen in one predictable direction like the sustain unison.

Happy union tunings to all: <---this is where the real magic happens!
whome yippie


I think you are describing yet an "evolved" instruction to build unison (generally used with strip muting).

The one I often have read is "make the 2 or 3 strings sound together as if there is only one" ( citing Ron Koval there, among others)

Go in the woods with that in mind , and cry because of those "false beats" that occur after a second or 2 !
Talk of a crude definition, I believe things have evolved in 10 years, hopefully.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308061 - 07/28/14 08:45 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Ed McMorrow, RPT]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Ed McMorrow, RPT
Well this topic has digressed. I don't see many posters weighing in on which of these two components; hammer or soundboard, is more significant in the energy balance of the partials contained in a piano waveform. I think the hammer is half of the whole shebang.

I do think the discussion of unison types needs to be defined by where in the compass "styles" of unison tuning may apply. In the wound notes almost all of the unisons will have some mis-matched partial pairs. The strings just aren't perfect enough to enable DOA unisons. Coupling is very strong in the long strings and becomes less powerful as you ascend the compass. So you can't depend on coupling to "pull" things together in the treble.


Thanks for trying to pull the discussion back to the topic. My feeling, from the comments made early in the thread, is that the hammer design (felt type, hardness, shape, mass) will produce, for a given strike velocity and strike point, a fixed set of partials, and that voicing can raise or lower the 'energy' of all the partials such that they maintain the same relative intensities. The soundboard then modifies the spectra to produce the final relative partial levels.

Top
#2308101 - 07/28/14 11:07 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Ed McMorrow, RPT Online   content
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 12/09/12
Posts: 2077
Loc: Seattle, WA USA
Well, because of the non-linear spring rate of the felt, the spectra balance can change with dynamics more with one type of hammer felt than another.
_________________________
In a seemingly infinite universe-infinite human creativity is-seemingly possible

Top
#2308131 - 07/28/14 12:26 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Ed McMorrow, RPT]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: Ed McMorrow, RPT
Well, because of the non-linear spring rate of the felt, the spectra balance can change with dynamics more with one type of hammer felt than another.


Yes I believe of a 2 moments deformation when our dense hammers are voiced correctly.
the low part is not compressed late, possibly the way it send its reaction then is more dynamic than when the felt have a similar type of resiliency all along the shoulders.

I perceive that 2 moments effect anyway, that allow to play while using the base of the FFF to shape other levels of tone, and not the other direction ..

That is why first voicing is there to "open" and lenghten the tone, while keeping if thick, not only opening the tone for moderate to light levels of playing.

Certainly our modern very good felts provide yet such effect , and if those are long fiber felts when needling low you create a lot of partials soon. The resiliency quality at FFF is what really can drive the tone quality. if the plague is too short all other nuances are impacted.

PS I have seen somehow moderately soft European hammers needled very fast and in a limited way in the lower regions.

That is a very immediate and strong and lively tone is installed then.But the way it evolves in time make necessary to do again low needling one year later .
The other way the tone strengthen without hardness , in time. eventually will need some more shaping if one have gone too far.
The problem is to know enough the felt to evaluate how much is too much and aint easy.


Edited by Olek (07/28/14 12:30 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308139 - 07/28/14 12:38 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Thanks Ed and Isaac.

I understand, hear, and enjoy the tonal change as the intensity of the hammer strike increases. My concern is still about the possibility, or not, of voicing a hammer so as to exchange the relative strength of the third and fourth partials.

This is a hypothetical question only, though, you all may be doing this regularly.

Top
#2308195 - 07/28/14 03:20 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
basically it seem to relate more with strike, hence the amount of deformation/damping created around the strike .

I think that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it.

For instance that if the shoulders are made rounder and more resilient by needling more horizontally than vertically, the fundamental is taking much benefit, while there is still enough high partials.

I mean, I do not believe it is ideal to be defensive "against" a partial, but just changing the balance gives better results.

As long there is a trade off obtained by needling, the job is efficient. when we begin to lower the power too much, high partials come back at the front of the tone.

You can for instance use all the density from the regions under 9:30 to have an always round and light tone (a colleague does that on all pianos, together with a heavy triangular cutting of wood at the base of the shanks, an call that "old French tone" .That mean, all the hammer shoulders and upper parts are sustained from the inside, without much dense fondation to use as a wall or a support. the tone is opened to the max (no density at FFF)

BTW depending of your shanks if you shape them to the thinner, you will lower the frequency of the hammer assembly at impact time, so that will be copied in the wire.
Just "sound" your shanks by tapping the heads on a wooden block, or the shanks on a metal blade, or the tails,
take one that ring higher than others, be sure it is well glued, an scrape its underside and the low angles until it have a similar tone than its neighbors.

Of course check the tone content before and after.

That way you will notice the difference an if it is worth
scraping all the shanks , it is a sort of voicing. A lower ring gives a rounder an smoother tone.
I tell you to do so on the shanks that ring higher so it only can be better globally, no risk. You may nee to scrape a lot.

Experimenting the tone and rebound on a hard but sonorous wood block tells you some things about your hammer and voicing, too. Use a blade from a xylophone, a clave, something you can hear a resonance from. Listen also to the impact on the strings while muting them with a cloth. That may help to locate a less noisy strike point in the treble. (or to discover some action noise or inconsistency due to the bedding or some inner stress.










Edited by Olek (07/28/14 05:40 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308225 - 07/28/14 04:46 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Olek
basically it seem to relate more with strike, hence the amount of deformation/damping created around the strike .

I think that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it.

For instance that if the shoulders are made rounder and more resilient by needling more horizontally than vertically, the fundamental is taking much benefit, while there is still enough high partials.

I mean, I do not believe it is ideal to be defensive "against" a partial, but just changing the balance gives better results.

As long there is a trade off obtained by needling, the job is efficient. when we begin to lower the power too much, high partials come back at the front of the tone.

You can for instance use all the density from the regions under 9:30 to have an always round and light tone (a colleague does that on all pianos, together with a heavy triangular cutting of wood at the base of the shanks, an call that "old French tone" .That mean, all the hammer shoulders and upper parts are sustained from the inside, without much dense fondation to use as a wall or a support. the tone is opened to the max (no density at FFF)

BTW depending of your shanks if you shape them to the thinner, you will lower the frequency of the hammer assembly at impact time, so that will be copied in the wire.
Just "sound" your shanks by tapping the heads on a wooden block, or the shanks on a metal blade, or the tails,
take one that ring higher than others, be sure it is well glued, an scrape its underside and the low angles until it have a similar tone than its neighbors.

Of course check the tone content before and after.

That way you will notice the difference an if it is worth
scraping all the shanks , it is a sort of voicing. A lower ring gives a rounder an smoother tone.
I tell you to do so on the shanks that ring higher so it only can be better globally, no risk. You may nee to scrape a lot.

Experimenting the tone and rebound on a hard but sonorous wood block tells you some things about your hammer and voicing, too. Use a blade from a xylophone, a clave, something you can hear a resonance from. Listen also to the impact on the strings while muting them with a cloth. That may help to locate a less noisy strike point in the treble. (or to discover some action noise or inconsistency due to the being or some inner stress.









Thank you Isaac for that wealth of information. I will not try it on my new BB (being a rank amateur), but I can try it at my tech's piano shop, and we can work together on my piano later.

Top
#2308231 - 07/28/14 05:12 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Withindale Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 02/09/11
Posts: 1940
Loc: Suffolk, England
Originally Posted By: prout
My concern is still about the possibility, or not, of voicing a hammer so as to exchange the relative strength of the third and fourth partials.

Prout,

Nicholas Giordano describes his experiments on the soundboard In the Physics of the Piano.

He measured its mechanical impedance, the ratio of the force applied to the velocity of the board, at the point where the middle C strings contact the bridge. The board came from an upright piano. The impedance varied by a factor of as much as 10 from one frequency to another.

The first two modes (points of minimum impedance/maximum velocity) of that board were 100 Hz and 180 Hz, not quite a harmonic progression. All this would be clearer if I could reproduce his chart here.

I imagine that impedance would be the main reason for differences between third and fourth partials you mention.

In an earlier post you felt that voicing can raise or lower the 'energy' of all the partials such that they maintain the same relative intensities. My understanding is that voicing can change the relative intensities of the higher, medium and lower partials to some degree.

Whether it's possible to home in on specific partials while voicing is a question for the professionals. Isaac thinks that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?
_________________________
Ian Russell
Schiedmayer & Soehne, 1925 Model 14, 55" upright
Ibach, 1922 49" upright (project piano)

Top
#2308237 - 07/28/14 05:37 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Withindale]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Withindale
In an earlier post you felt that voicing can raise or lower the 'energy' of all the partials such that they maintain the same relative intensities. My understanding is that voicing can change the relative intensities of the higher, medium and lower partials to some degree.

Whether it's possible to home in on specific partials while voicing is a question for the professionals. Isaac thinks that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?


It would seem, and I may be wrong, that the string/soundboard/bridge (plus other items) combination probably presets the conditions for partial development.

The hammer, I would guess, exhibits a monotonic (always in the same direction) change in hardness as the strike velocity increases and also as the hardness of the hammer is changed by type, age, and voicing. This causes the hammer's contact time with the string to change monotonically as well and causes the hammer's contact area to change monotonically.

Both these factors would change the partial amplitudes, but I wouldn't think it would change their relative intensities. That is to say, a higher partial might decrease or disappear entirely with a softer hammer or needling, but always at an equal or lower intensity than a lower partial.

Does this make any sense?

Top
#2308242 - 07/28/14 05:56 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: Olek
basically it seem to relate more with strike, hence the amount of deformation/damping created around the strike .

I think that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it.

For instance that if the shoulders are made rounder and more resilient by needling more horizontally than vertically, the fundamental is taking much benefit, while there is still enough high partials.

I mean, I do not believe it is ideal to be defensive "against" a partial, but just changing the balance gives better results.

As long there is a trade off obtained by needling, the job is efficient. when we begin to lower the power too much, high partials come back at the front of the tone.

You can for instance use all the density from the regions under 9:30 to have an always round and light tone (a colleague does that on all pianos, together with a heavy triangular cutting of wood at the base of the shanks, an call that "old French tone" .That mean, all the hammer shoulders and upper parts are sustained from the inside, without much dense fondation to use as a wall or a support. the tone is opened to the max (no density at FFF)

BTW depending of your shanks if you shape them to the thinner, you will lower the frequency of the hammer assembly at impact time, so that will be copied in the wire.
Just "sound" your shanks by tapping the heads on a wooden block, or the shanks on a metal blade, or the tails,
take one that ring higher than others, be sure it is well glued, an scrape its underside and the low angles until it have a similar tone than its neighbors.

Of course check the tone content before and after.

That way you will notice the difference an if it is worth
scraping all the shanks , it is a sort of voicing. A lower ring gives a rounder an smoother tone.
I tell you to do so on the shanks that ring higher so it only can be better globally, no risk. You may nee to scrape a lot.

Experimenting the tone and rebound on a hard but sonorous wood block tells you some things about your hammer and voicing, too. Use a blade from a xylophone, a clave, something you can hear a resonance from. Listen also to the impact on the strings while muting them with a cloth. That may help to locate a less noisy strike point in the treble. (or to discover some action noise or inconsistency due to the being or some inner stress.









Thank you Isaac for that wealth of information. I will not try it on my new BB (being a rank amateur), but I can try it at my tech's piano shop, and we can work together on my piano later.

Great, I suggest unless the shanks are in composite cannot be tuned but they are relatively consistent diameter by diameter) that your shanks have been selected by tone prior installation, then evened once the hammers are glued (at voicing time) .

Anyway if not , that is a very usual way of doing in all good piano making places - scraping the underside is Bluethner way, it is more discrete than thinning the shank.

I think your tech and you may hear how the hammer impact gets more consistence once done. I think simply because the tone shows the springiness of the shank.

this helps listening for voicing, an the evening is perceived , globally, way more than expected.

BTW I wrote it yet but the high pitches shank are the stronger ones so once the selection is one for high treble, the next "high pitched" ones are for basses where the heavier hammers need strong shanks. then the rest goes again from "high" to low for the rest of the tones from melodic section to low mediums.
trying at last to have no higher pitch on lower notes an +- similar ones in one section. this changes a little after the heads are glued but as you only can lower the resiliency (lower the pith, make the shank more supple) it is better to select well the shanks .
(cause me always problems with the sample hammers and shanks as all the shanks are numbered at that point and, I often test samples before having installed all the shanks! )
in a quality set the tone change about a m3d the really low ones can be thrown away, but with 90 shanks only... I have no problems with Renner shanks in the end.



Edited by Olek (07/29/14 06:15 AM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308435 - 07/29/14 09:54 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
I wonder if we should start a new thread on unison tuning. This Viennese vs sustain vs DOA is a whole large issue in itself.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2308494 - 07/29/14 12:18 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: gynnis]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: gynnis
I wonder if we should start a new thread on unison tuning. This Viennese vs sustain vs DOA is a whole large issue in itself.


Do a search here on Piano World. You will find it has been discussed ad nauseum.

Top
#2308499 - 07/29/14 12:36 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: gynnis
I wonder if we should start a new thread on unison tuning. This Viennese vs sustain vs DOA is a whole large issue in itself.


Do a search here on Piano World. You will find it has been discussed ad nauseum.


No, I think it made a passage "en force" after about 10 years lobbying, that among a majority that want to hear 3 strings as if there is only one.

The fact seem to be that a certain voicing type push the tuner toward DOA, that seemed more evidence to me when I heard side by side a NY and German Steinway some weeks ago.

Then the "open unison" whatever its style) may create too much activity, or sound as something impure, mostly because the hammers are not in that type of tone.

Too fast rebound (seem to me there is too much power undelying an that appears soon in dynamics) : limited possibilities to enlarge the tone immediately after the attack.
A slow lively FFF hammer allow to shape the tone more efficiently in my opinion.




Edited by Olek (07/29/14 12:45 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308507 - 07/29/14 12:53 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: Withindale
In an earlier post you felt that voicing can raise or lower the 'energy' of all the partials such that they maintain the same relative intensities. My understanding is that voicing can change the relative intensities of the higher, medium and lower partials to some degree.

Whether it's possible to home in on specific partials while voicing is a question for the professionals. Isaac thinks that if for instance the 3 partial is too present, raising the lower partials %, may hide it. But that's not quite the same thing, is it?


It would seem, and I may be wrong, that the string/soundboard/bridge (plus other items) combination probably presets the conditions for partial development.

The hammer, I would guess, exhibits a monotonic (always in the same direction) change in hardness as the strike velocity increases and also as the hardness of the hammer is changed by type, age, and voicing. This causes the hammer's contact time with the string to change monotonically as well and causes the hammer's contact area to change monotonically.

Both these factors would change the partial amplitudes, but I wouldn't think it would change their relative intensities. That is to say, a higher partial might decrease or disappear entirely with a softer hammer or needling, but always at an equal or lower intensity than a lower partial.

Does this make any sense?


That is not what I am after, but for a change in resiliency that is non linear as possible. I cannot relate that well to partial distribution, but the total power is suppose to stay, if not this is "defensive voicing" an I am indeed not sure you can lower a 3 partial without lowering the rest as well in that case.

Voicing change the stroke, as the hammer deformation varies.
That could be more or less damping a particular partial probably (even if we certainly do not move the hammer in a large enough direction to attain the 3d partials nodes.)

They probably can be "masqued" by a physical effect I do not really unerstand.

Probably noticying at whidh level of playing the partial is the most present and reducing the power at that level may help.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308540 - 07/29/14 02:33 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: prout
Originally Posted By: gynnis
I wonder if we should start a new thread on unison tuning. This Viennese vs sustain vs DOA is a whole large issue in itself.


Do a search here on Piano World. You will find it has been discussed ad nauseum.


No, I think it made a passage "en force" after about 10 years lobbying, that among a majority that want to hear 3 strings as if there is only one.

The fact seem to be that a certain voicing type push the tuner toward DOA, that seemed more evidence to me when I heard side by side a NY and German Steinway some weeks ago.

Then the "open unison" whatever its style) may create too much activity, or sound as something impure, mostly because the hammers are not in that type of tone.

Too fast rebound (seem to me there is too much power undelying an that appears soon in dynamics) : limited possibilities to enlarge the tone immediately after the attack.
A slow lively FFF hammer allow to shape the tone more efficiently in my opinion.




Sorry Isaac,

I didn't mean to dismiss the idea of a new topic on unisons.

I welcome the discussion and hope others will too.

I find that my piano responds much, much better to smiley unisons, especially in the C5 to C7 range where DOA unisons kill the tone and sustain.

Top
#2308543 - 07/29/14 02:39 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
Prout, thanks for the tip. I checked out some of the unequal temperament discussion. I'm really looking for the interaction of temperament and unison type.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2308547 - 07/29/14 02:47 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: gynnis]
prout Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 11/14/13
Posts: 798
Originally Posted By: gynnis
Prout, thanks for the tip. I checked out some of the unequal temperament discussion. I'm really looking for the interaction of temperament and unison type.


Interesting thought. I am not sure that unison type would have a significant effect on the perception of a given unequal temperament. The UT itself adds so much colour to the music.

It is possible that the listener might prefer very tight unisons when listening to polyphonic music in an UT appropriate to the era of the music.

For Schubert, I prefer Young 1799 or the Vallotti-Young variant. It works well with non-DOA unisons.

Top
#2308582 - 07/29/14 03:49 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
Thanks, I'll look it up. Something like Kirnberger III is probably too strong for this era. My thinking was that if Viennese unisons could "pull" the pitch a bit, it might interact with the temperament especially in the area of the "wolf". The other complication is that Schubert was probably playing a square piano which have their own issues.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2308583 - 07/29/14 03:52 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
gynnis Offline
Full Member

Registered: 02/16/14
Posts: 122
Loc: Florida, Connecticut
I find the width of the unisons depends a lot on the piano. I tune my Seiler pretty wide since it has a pretty short resonance time (although pulling the pitch back to 440 from 438 seems to have fixed that to some extent). My Chickering I tune narrow since it sings for a very long time with a warm tone even at 435.
_________________________
Seiler 206, Chickering 145, Estey 2 manual reed organ, Fudge clavichord, Zuckerman single harpsichord, Technics P-30, Roland RD-100.

Top
#2308596 - 07/29/14 04:33 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
That is the pure awesomeness of having flexible unison types: DOA, like the people, don't move very much, and when they do, the death rattle can be an intense experience for the observer! sick

Colour Unisons have the ability to move in both directions, since one string has a lower set of frequencies and the other one a higher set. Sustain Unisons, are slightly more limited in flexibility, moving more readily in the higher direction and resisting more of that downward pulls--they are so much better than DOAs in that respect.

Either way, the colour/sustain unisons make unequal temperaments work so much better on piano. DOAs simply sound wrong, IMHO.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308650 - 07/29/14 06:03 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
SMHaley Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 646
Loc: Seattle
I think there is a fine line however between a unison with a hint of color or energy, and one that is just a little sloppy. And that slight color better not widen to a slowly beating unison after a bit of Prokofiev.
_________________________
AA Music Arts 2001, BM 2005
Pipe Organ Builder
Practitioner of piano technology
Church Music Professional
Curator of instruments - Chancel Arts
Baldwin F 1960 (146256)
Zuckermann Flemish Single

Top
#2308656 - 07/29/14 06:14 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: SMHaley]
Chris Leslie Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/01/11
Posts: 625
Loc: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Originally Posted By: SMHaley
I think there is a fine line however between a unison with a hint of color or energy, and one that is just a little sloppy. And that slight color better not widen to a slowly beating unison after a bit of Prokofiev.

And also, not to mention whether or not all this consideration of unison color was in the minds of the great composers on their instruments at their time.
_________________________
Chris Leslie
Piano technician
http://www.chrisleslie.com.au

Top
#2308658 - 07/29/14 06:23 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Unisons should never beat, nor should they ever move/detune with any amount of banging on by a pianist--no matter the unison style.

However, consider this: a DOA unison (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) that slips to (0.0, 0.0, -0.2)--for whatever reason--is far more noticeable than with a colour unison move from (-0.3, 0.0, +0.3) to (-0.3, 0.0, 0.1). Any small change in a DOA perfection is pretty glaring in both the unison and the octave. <----a VERY important concept to consider.

Other unison types are more forgiving with "acts of God." thumb wow Yet another reason to consider the alternatives.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308662 - 07/29/14 06:29 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: SMHaley]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: SMHaley
I think there is a fine line however between a unison with a hint of color or energy, and one that is just a little sloppy. And that slight color better not widen to a slowly beating unison after a bit of Prokofiev.


It does not relate, in my opinion, this is something different than "sloopiness" we deal with.
In the end even after years , I hardly find "beating" unisons. The idea is elsewhere, we are not in boogie woogie prep !

The idea I think is to master the way the unison will evolve, since the start, ; they are slightly "pushed" in a direction while keeping some resilience an attraction to self center.

Sure balanced shapesiennese, smiley) are more long term living
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308663 - 07/29/14 06:34 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
A DOA is very poorly self centered, in fact it only have an envy, to settle, if not "pushed" originally in a determined direction I think it can adopt any kind of stable posture.

Probably not very long lasting because so much energy is use at the start, there is not enough left to "drive (maintain) coupling later in the sustain. (hence more false strings an noises.)

That process is well noticed when you tune old pianos with weak blocks. You just need to hold the wire with the tuning pin and have both landing in the stable acoustical spot, (nice energy flow) and you have a good stability without plenty of maneuvers


Edited by Olek (07/29/14 06:36 PM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308705 - 07/29/14 07:59 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
SMHaley Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 646
Loc: Seattle
Isaac, have you sent that film Piano Mania, with the Steinway tech Stefan Knupfer? I think of what he was doing with Alfred Brendel trying to get different qualities of tone with the unisons to suggest different instruments... All from the same piano.
_________________________
AA Music Arts 2001, BM 2005
Pipe Organ Builder
Practitioner of piano technology
Church Music Professional
Curator of instruments - Chancel Arts
Baldwin F 1960 (146256)
Zuckermann Flemish Single

Top
#2308711 - 07/29/14 08:21 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Chris Leslie]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
And also, not to mention whether or not all this consideration of unison color was in the minds of the great composers on their instruments at their time.
No, it probably wasn't, but even if it was: pianos pre-1900 have a broader dimensional tonal quality because of the stringing and construction--composers most likely would have been aiming for a DOA (i.e., their period-piano DOAs and our modern-piano Colour unisons are equivalent in terms of the functionality and overall tone of the tuning).


Edited by A443 (07/29/14 10:02 PM)
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308713 - 07/29/14 08:23 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Demential?
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2308717 - 07/29/14 08:33 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Tonal dimensionality, in increasing order of: sine tone, multiple sine tones at different timings, a piano tone, upright piano, string quartet, full symphony orchestra with chorus [and anvil].


Edited by A443 (07/29/14 08:47 PM)
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308724 - 07/29/14 08:54 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
SMHaley Online   content
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/06/13
Posts: 646
Loc: Seattle
Originally Posted By: A443
No, it portably wasn't, but even if it was: pianos pre-1900 have a broader dimensional tonal quality because of the stringing and construction--composers most likely would have been aiming for a DOA (i.e., their period-piano DOAs and our modern-piano Colour unisons are equivalent in terms of the functionality and overall tone of the tuning).


I think that is presuming a great deal. In what way do you consider 19th century pianos broader? Having played a number of grands from that period I consider them to be a bit more delicate, but sweeter. Certainly very different from a modern grand.
_________________________
AA Music Arts 2001, BM 2005
Pipe Organ Builder
Practitioner of piano technology
Church Music Professional
Curator of instruments - Chancel Arts
Baldwin F 1960 (146256)
Zuckermann Flemish Single

Top
#2308737 - 07/29/14 10:02 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Ultimately, none of these written descriptions of tone are universal enough to have much meaning. No matter how much you write, I do not think that you can describe sound to a person who has never been able to hear anything.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2308760 - 07/29/14 10:55 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: BDB]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: BDB
Ultimately, none of these written descriptions of tone are universal enough to have much meaning. No matter how much you write, I do not think that you can describe sound to a person who has never been able to hear anything.
That's preposterous: deaf people still tactilely feel music!

In fact, I regularly excises my tactile tuning skills separately: I put in really massive and professionally moulded earplugs to aurally block-out nearly all the sounds. What is left over is primarily bone vibration [mostly in the head/jaw/teeth], but other areas of the body as well (e.g., the skin) that are able to sense vibrations and assist in constructing a overall sonic image in the brain. Honing these skills means a technician can successfully tune in a very noisy environment--when there is no other option.

Technicians that study with me, have learned to tune through almost anything. I have long been a proponent of tandem tunings pedagogically. When two tuners have to tune the same piano, at the same time, doing multiple passes, relying only on aural skills doesn't work very well.

BTW, ever wonder why your voice never sounds the same on a recording as you experience it everyday? It's mainly the tactile difference in bone vibrations. These sounds are not vibrated as much with the recording as when the sound originates from within your body.
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308789 - 07/30/14 01:16 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
BDB Online   content
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member

Registered: 06/07/03
Posts: 21529
Loc: Oakland
Let me know when you have taught someone who is completely deaf to tune a piano by bone conduction and without electronics.
_________________________
Semipro Tech

Top
#2308829 - 07/30/14 05:59 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: A443
Originally Posted By: BDB
Ultimately, none of these written descriptions of tone are universal enough to have much meaning. No matter how much you write, I do not think that you can describe sound to a person who has never been able to hear anything.
That's preposterous: deaf people still tactilely feel music!

In fact, I regularly excises my tactile tuning skills separately: I put in really massive and professionally moulded earplugs to aurally block-out nearly all the sounds. What is left over is primarily bone vibration [mostly in the head/jaw/teeth], but other areas of the body as well (e.g., the skin) that are able to sense vibrations and assist in constructing a overall sonic image in the brain. Honing these skills means a technician can successfully tune in a very noisy environment--when there is no other option.

Technicians that study with me, have learned to tune through almost anything. I have long been a proponent of tandem tunings pedagogically. When two tuners have to tune the same piano, at the same time, doing multiple passes, relying only on aural skills doesn't work very well.

BTW, ever wonder why your voice never sounds the same on a recording as you experience it everyday? It's mainly the tactile difference in bone vibrations. These sounds are not vibrated as much with the recording as when the sound originates from within your body.


You still as extremist as usual !!

But I agree that it is useful to get the feeling of the tone without a too large immersion, hence with other senses, "whole body" vs ears only.

Then all depend of what you want to listen too, I generally o not shut up the radio to tune in the shop, then I only tune "bloom" and expand it from unisons to other intervals.
Having a precise listening of the top of the spectra is not really possible easily in noise.

The radio, or music, is creating a masking effect, a little as earplugs but less enclosed, so you have less difficulties to deal with the power of the tone an the coupling part of tuning.

Before I learned to master the tone parts, it happened often I filtered mentally the attack, and finished with it being too present and too aggressive.

That way of listening, which must be common until the tuner realize he can work more musically, is very damageable an tiring for the ears.

Tuning with the whole piano resonating put you directly in the iH of non impacted strings which must be lower than when notes are played normally. Then you have the benefit of "static strings" resonance, the stretch is still moderate, or possibly "hidden" because the coupling is strong.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308833 - 07/30/14 06:09 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: SMHaley]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: SMHaley
Isaac, have you sent that film Piano Mania, with the Steinway tech Stefan Knupfer? I think of what he was doing with Alfred Brendel trying to get different qualities of tone with the unisons to suggest different instruments... All from the same piano.


Many pianists know you can interfere a bit with the tone projection and color. (if not when you show them it is an eye opener !)

Some specifically want not any "phasing" audible , jazz pianists particularly, as they emphases much on the attack and tone articulation.

But no one want that "scissors cut" effect that happens when the tone is not oriented during attack.

The attack itself, despite being "noise" , can be regulated by the tuner, hopefully this is not really done only by listening to that harshness , and , may be strangely, you can regulate the attack by coupling the very top of the spectra.
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2308962 - 07/30/14 02:19 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: Olek]
A443 Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/28/12
Posts: 1313
Loc: Manywheres
Originally Posted By: Olek
You still as extremist as usual !!
Apparently so. This morning I went to my boulangerie to enjoy a good morning croissant and espresso drink. The total was $6.77; I gave the cashier two pennies, two twos, and a twenty. She gave me a crazy look; I said, 'just type it into your computer machine and let's see what happens.' After it told her to give me back a quarter, a five, and a ten, she exclaimed: 'wow, that is some extreme math you got going on there.'

Extreme?!? cry cursing Honestly, I think I'm the normal one. Why would anyone do it another way? It makes more sense to have fewer cents clinking around in your pocket all day long. smirk
_________________________
Klavierbaukünstler des Erwachens
...expecter of the best, 'gunslinger' to the rest!
Email: klavierbaukuenstler@gmail.com

Top
#2308966 - 07/30/14 02:33 PM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
I just believe you add a bit more salt, so we are sure that the taste is "salted" . Does not give a clue about the smell, however wink
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2313271 - 08/09/14 03:42 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
Mark Cerisano, RPT Online   content
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/24/10
Posts: 1265
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Originally Posted By: A443
Originally Posted By: Olek
You still as extremist as usual !!
Apparently so. This morning I went to my boulangerie to enjoy a good morning croissant and espresso drink. The total was $6.77; I gave the cashier two pennies, two twos, and a twenty. She gave me a crazy look; I said, 'just type it into your computer machine and let's see what happens.' After it told her to give me back a quarter, a five, and a ten, she exclaimed: 'wow, that is some extreme math you got going on there.'

Extreme?!? cry cursing Honestly, I think I'm the normal one. Why would anyone do it another way? It makes more sense to have fewer cents clinking around in your pocket all day long. smirk


Be glad you do not live in Canada. Our smallest bill is the $5. We have dollar and two dollar coins. We all walk around with Robin Hood type jangling leather bags hanging from our belts.

But we have eliminated the penny! (Somebody had to do something!)


Edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT (08/09/14 03:44 AM)
_________________________
Mark Cerisano, RPT
www.howtotunepianos.com

Top
#2313287 - 08/09/14 05:39 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
I prefer to have some with me so I can be gentle to some people more in need of those than me...

Sure if I give them those sort of strange coins they will give me an evil eye !

I think the centime is in the visor today...
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2313288 - 08/09/14 05:43 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: A443]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: A443
Originally Posted By: Olek
You still as extremist as usual !!
Apparently so. This morning I went to my boulangerie to enjoy a good morning croissant and espresso drink. The total was $6.77; I gave the cashier two pennies, two twos, and a twenty. She gave me a crazy look; I said, 'just type it into your computer machine and let's see what happens.' After it told her to give me back a quarter, a five, and a ten, she exclaimed: 'wow, that is some extreme math you got going on there.'

Extreme?!? cry cursing Honestly, I think I'm the normal one. Why would anyone do it another way? It makes more sense to have fewer cents clinking around in your pocket all day long. smirk



No, not, you are absolutely abnormal, you cannot buy croissants with the money you cite, only with French €uro (cocorico Vive la France, winner of the tour de France de football !)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
#2313289 - 08/09/14 05:48 AM Re: Partial strength - hammer voicing or soundboard ? [Re: prout]
Olek Online   content
7000 Post Club Member

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 7554
Loc: France
Originally Posted By: prout
In your experience, are relative partial strengths primarily a function of hammer voicing or soundboard/bridge impedance/resonance ?

I find significant variation in the relative strengths of the lower partials in the tenor/bass section of my piano.

(Edit: Ignore, for the moment, strike point, and assume constant velocity hammer strike.)



Back to the subject : the most responsible for me is first the wire, then the soundboard and then the hammer And shank that work with what they found.

Only with wound strings the quality of wounding matters a little more than the steel. But steel mechanics prevails, more than spectra may be.

Regards


Edited by Olek (08/09/14 05:50 AM)
_________________________
It is critical that you call your Senators and Representatives and ask them to cosponsor S. 2587 and H.R. 5052. Getting your legislators to cosponsor these bills


Top
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Moderator:  Piano World 
What's Hot!!
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.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
ad (Casio)
Celviano by Casio Rebate
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Seiler 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
New Topics - Multiple Forums
DEBUSSY- 'The terrace for moonlit audiences'
by Hal Freedman
09/21/14 07:49 PM
Baldwin PS2500 ram battery
by mooh320ps
09/21/14 07:47 PM
height of piano bench
by EBB
09/21/14 07:43 PM
Tuning a 1977 Yamaha G2-Koval EQ/Koval Avg, Ipad 2 Verituner
by Grandpianoman
09/21/14 06:41 PM
Darrell Fandrich is Well
by chernobieff
09/21/14 06:04 PM
Who's Online
113 registered (Auntie Lynn, accordeur, bennevis, anotherscott, 35 invisible), 1173 Guests and 16 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
76281 Members
42 Forums
157677 Topics
2316000 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
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