Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Viennese vs sustain vs DOA tuned unisons and temperament

Well, the first thing you might demonstrate is what you consider to be DOA unison. So far, it just sounds like a poor quality tuning. As far as drawing unison distinctions between "American" tuners and others, I think you are all wet. I was trained by one of the most highly regarded tuners of the 20th century, who happened to be British and very experienced in all things European. Not once did he mention this distinction that you seem to be using to disqualify American tuners' discernment. And, having listened to numerous turnings from others, I know of no one that draws this distinction.

Now, if someone can't actually tune a consistently clean unison, it would make sense that they would try to promote the value of their loose ones, but I do this for a living with primarily professional musicians and I believe I have a pretty good grasp of what is expected for performance. Those examples are not it.

iPad mini. Having multiple international cellphones made little/no sense and was expensive. Now, I simply switch the cards for internet in the different countries. Email is a sufficient means of communication, as far as I am concerned. Going phoneless was the best decision I ever made: I have no regrets!

OK, Ed Foote, I understand: you think there is only one way of tuning a unison. So, there is nothing much left for you and I to discuss. When I was younger and had less experience, I thought like you...so I get what you are trying to say. But, I kept an open mind and continued to learn through the experiences of others all over the world. Now, I have more tools to work with. I can tune a unison any way that I want, or the situation requires: that kind of freedom is tonally liberating. I don't expect you to wake-up and hear a difference, but you are not the one playing the piano. If you are fine with only one approach, good for you. For me and the professional pianists I work together with, it's not enough. Who are you to judge us with your one-size fits all mentality? Tuning concerti, solo, and chamber unisons are completely different approaches, IMHO. If you want to tune everything in the same way, cool beans, but it doesn't satisfy professional concert pianists the way you try to represent in your posts.

BTW, British are as far away removed musically/mentality from Europe as is America. European sound is related to culture, language, and history; this is, apparently, something that needs to be experienced in person, or it doesn't exist to them.

I am sorry your unison demonstration was not much convincing, it may be more interesting to directly tune different types an explain what you are listening for.

I tried at numerous occasions and it is really difficult to explain on what we concentrate.

For instance, I can play very softly and look for the moment the rebound of the hammer is stronger and more precise, that works fine on a large scale, but not much in treble.

Anyway whatever we are doing we are listening to the way an the moment partials are coupling.

I wanted to make a demonstration with high coupling (3,4th partials) in mediums, when we can have the sound projecting toward those partials. the couple(reinforce) audibly, but then the fundamental is distorted (anyway on some pianos)
SO I was obliged to re-conciliate the partials and the fundamental , that mean, going back to coupling lower, fundamental and 2nd,3 partial coupling almost immediately .

Whatever kind of tone the tuner have in ear/mind it must be "playable" I think one of the most important feature is that the attack must be perceived under the fingers of the pianist, a rebound of the hammer.

Ed did mention some day ,very well observed that some "shapes" are making the 3 strings more stiff; I think that is what can be perceived in the playing hand when playing very softly while tuning.


About if it is noticed, differences between the US way and European, I had some reports of the kind, one from a poster that came to USA to pass the PTG test, other from other posters listening to tuning samples.

I think this goes hand in hand with voicing, but I think tone "shaping" is not considered interesting if even possible, by must tuners (also here it is the case, this is mostly absence of experiments and lack of comparison with different cultures and ways)

I think a DOA may be wonderful if tuned while playing pppp with soft staccato rebounds of the hammer.

When tuning DOA while playing strong and then a little hard on some pianos, something is taken out of the tone, it is also possible to tune a VERY harsh tone without noticing because the ear switch to a listening mode that erase/filter/mask the attack harshness. (ear fatigue)

I have been guilty of that, the piano played more nicely after the first candidate (was a concourse) Also, the second pianist did hear the piano an was less surprise, so he use the pedal a little more.
The inverse effect exist, listening first to the bloom or tone projection, moaning at fundamental level can be "lost in translation"

The demonstration of a harsh DOA is the easiest one to do.

Imagination plays a role when tuning, it help by providing a tone model we have in memory.

I like the difference, since a pianist I respect as a musician promise me she had a very rich palette with NY Steinways, I put on the missing information in recordings, my sentiment that tonal palette is limited when compare to the Hamburg ones.

What I like is that the saturation obtained at higher regime is hidden in all others.
That mean the hammer is not artificially powered as it happen with lacquering (power is present since the ppp nuances)

I like that in some cases, on pianos that miss partials or power, but ideally if it could be avoided the resiliency would be all but linear, so long so good, better for the pianist in my opinion (for basses and mediums particularly, the treble can be helped more easily with impregnation products))

Olek, I was demonstrating how flexible the pitch changes are based on the unison type, which is why I demonstrated things in the exact way that I did. DOAs don't do that: they fight more with other unisons. That is at the core with what makes them different; that is why it was demonstrated that way.

Unisons are not isolated entities, they exist within a musical context. This is the main problem of temperament strips (i.e., artificial reality). Even though I simplified the concept, not even those obvious pitch drifts were noted by any of the tuners--so of coarse, if that basic element is not noticed, none of it will be convincing to a tuner listening at an isolated unison.

Besides, to American tuners, there is only one right way to tune a piano: their way--nothing else matters.

May be Ed "thinks" there is only one way (many good tuners do, BTW, but this way is not something fixed as DOA, more "I tune the nicest clean tone I can")

Di you notice the change that happened in your unison style between the first recording "in temperaments", and more recent ones ?

It is clear to me for instance the first unison styles you use leaved the door open to more noises hammer mating an other sizzles, while the more robust one you tune actually (lately, I am unsure of the ate of the last recording) are more forgiving.

Your technique may not have changed, may be just the listening mode did.
Also, using a felt strip, is a natural way to "smiley" unison, centered on middle string, so many tuners may do so without being very conscious of. The pitch differences are too small to be really detected accurately (may be unless other strings are muted an each one is viewed on VT100 or a similar tool)


BTW the "smiley" I would call "Japanese method" of tone building, making an open tone left an a similar right.
Then it tend to a fixed shape as we make the same tone on both sides.
It is more fun to tune the 3 strings , once used to tone building. It often allow to use only one mute, or even no mute at all.
Once we recognize what is the attack, an what happens next , as we ont hae any particular interest to lengthen the end of the tone, all the job is one between attack and decay.

If we slow the decay too much, we have beats so there is the limit.

Thank you, Kees

Yes , for the strip, but learning a "precise" way with it is possible, simply the drift have to be taken in account.
Then I think the "smiley" are sustaining the pitch of the center string, and it can be the same in the end.

Indeed all that in a not so fixed context, pitches of piano tones are supple, interact, ten to go for coupling with other notes...

The strip is really use as a facility (often all along the piano. It does not allow then to apprehend what the color will be. I worked the Alfredo method with strip only up to C6 - concentrating on the portion that is the most mobile is a goo training.

Before learning to "build tone" with 2 couples (thanks Osatao !) I was tuning the 3 strings together, but with a lack of control on projection an articulation (all one by "feel" so good days an bad days did differ)

That mean yet tuning in "PR mode" with always some light overpull, so tuners develop a feel for the drift (while thinking the strings are responsible , not the bridge/panel, in my case, for long)

When we begin to have good understanding of the processes at work, everything is clearer and it is easier to manage the job.

The same apply to unison but formal studies are missing today. I try to have that done by a student at the IRCAM or acoustic laboratory . Let's see if someone will be interested.
The testing done yet (on strings polarization) did not take in account the unison shapes so interactions where not really planned beforehand.

That is interesting to notice that coupling at a higher level in partials, while clearly possible, will disturb the fundamental cleanness, while if the lower frequencies are coupling, they can "drive" the higher one while anyone stay clean. (they push the higher partials to couple sooner, seem to me)

Yes thanks

Funny as a 4:2 can sound "enlarged" it is in fact an enlarged 2:1 possibly the reason.

Yes, you do. The concert pianists who I've worked for - most, if not all, of whom have toured the world over - want clean unisons. For those who believe in degrees of "clean," there is no such thing. A unison is either clean or it is not.

The argument of the "clean unison" means just nothing. Just that you have nothing to say on the subject, as many.

That one begins to sound old those days.

As if we wanted to make "dirty unison"

It is just from people that did not compare their work with the ones of others - the incredible difference of tone between tuners, if you did not notice it ,you cannot ask yourself from what does it comes from.

You can have a prosperous life time carrier without those questions . Each one have its "clean unison" in the ear.

When clean mean harsh, there is a problem, that is solved by the piano after some hours of playing.

But tuners may not pretend having control on their job then.

So , what is supposed to be clean, the fundamental ? the top of the spectra ? the attack ?

Some of those cannot really agree perfectly.

Do you mean to say that I went through all those years of time and effort to produce stable clean unisons when these guys really didn't know what the heck they were asking for? Wish I had consulted with you long ago. Think of all the time and effort I could have saved. (Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my dirty unisons: a good scrubbing with Grandma's Lye Soap then hose 'em down before the stuff dries.)

Thanks, Isaac.

I hope the insults and puffery have past, and we can now progress?

Clearly, there are some important issues to discuss. I'm willing to demonstrate in as many different ways necessary until the concepts are finally rendered understandable to the ear. No one has to agree on anything. But, if you are going to disagree, you should at least be willing to discuss.

Let's start with some basics: how accurately do american piano technicians define "clean unison?" This is important: since there is so much rampant string beatings in the USA, how exactly do you deal with the falseness in the strings?!? How do you describe that falseness in detail?

These are not vague concepts...they have real answers!

they want clean unison and are confident to the tuner to do that -
depending of the piano, clean will not be the same thing

depending of the tuner, clean will differ

Depening of the voicing, clean will differ

(I guess I would be pushed to a straight neutral tone on NY Steinways )

If clean mean no motion in tone , as you please

I am only very surprised to see no comment on tone projection, thickness, on attack, on attack delay to decay, etc .

I am truly sorry to tell that publicly, I was said not to do so, to avoid chocking our older masters who did not care that much of theories.

Yes a piano an a room will +- dictate the unison tone the most adapted; If not you should not hear of those customers that find the piano bad after tuning.

Making our whole body aware of tone and touch is what make good tuners, no nee to theories, an most pianists never will ask you something as specific unison.

(most- pianist only have queries to trustee techs an ask almost nothing to others, unless challenging them, for what I understand)

Regards

The reason the american-string-beaters are so hypercritical of producing "clean unisons," is because they struggle to produce acceptable unisons on strings which they have introduced so much falseness into with their thrashings in the first place. Pianists do not like falseness in the strings, so of course they are going to complain to american technicians about their unison quality--the strings are already are out-of-tune with themselves to begin with; this is called damage control!!!

The arrogance of the american piano technician is an embarrassment; the concert conditions on american stages is a direct result of this stupidity.

There are many ways to tune a unison on a piano. Just because something sounds foreign to the technician, doesn't mean the merit to the performer is not there. It simply means the technician hasn't taken the time to understand the pros/cons to that approach. New concepts take time; no one has to agree with or ever utilise different unison approaches--that is best left to the professionals with the ability/understanding to accurately control unison placement and drift on strings that have not been beaten senseless.

I just recored as I tune some treble and some bichord tones on my usual 35 years vertical.
That one have a lot of false strings in the treble, so in the demonstration, I first use consonant point to fin the goo spot where to tune the first string, (using only one mute, the second string is free, an using no mute at all in bichords)

Then while tuning the second an 3d string, I try to hide the false beat the best I could.
It just show a way of apprehending pitch vs consonance.
That could be of some interest (without precisely counting beats, even if this can be useful as well (as the double strings method propose by Marc)

What I state is that this consonance is a large part of the pitch appreciation for the listener, an make the piano lively.

Now I will try to correct the false strings

First by tapping the pins (an see the result)

second by looking closely at the bridge pin and clean any hop in front of the pin, so the string o not touch the wood there.

3 by dismounting the string, looking at eventual twisting

Then mounting new ones when time permit I will change the last octaves, that will allow to record before/after heat massaging.

That is why I need that coiler, if I have not I cannot work !!!!

I do not find a lot of falseness in strings. I think that most of the falseness comes from tuners who cannot tune clean unisons, so they make up a fancy name for their tunings and proclaim them to be better.

Yes I agree false strings are not very common, way less than what I see written.
But strings that tone less cleanly than expected are. This can be named falseness as well.

Very high iH also can create strings beating with themselves, this can be due to aging of the steel I think.

With clean terminations, much of the "falseness" is gone, usually.
When referring to "false strings" mostly I think of "false beats" which is the most audible thing (and not so common unless unison technique is not good)


What is the most annoying for the pianist and listener) is absence of identification of a precise start of tone, that mean power under the finger. The strings have to be "pushed" to couple so they create that perceptible attack and that gives at the same time good tone projection or "bloom" (I suppose they are the same.)

As long as tuners have not the curiosity to pluck the strings once they finish to tune, and denote how they are pitching/coupling, no real new knowledge will be gained.

As the cts differences are so small, (0.1 - .4 , in the loss of discrimination region of the ear) it can be like a placebo effect. you guess you hear the center string lower, but it is not, it happened to me yet.
I think the way the NSL is powered/strengthened implies also a pitch sensation that differs.
The analysis of unison is not at all easy, even for very competent tuners.
That is why I try to have someone studying that in laboratory, with recordings on accelerometers, high speed camera, hypothesis and trying to demonstrate if the hypothese is valid.

Now I do not evaluate clearly the level of scholar or theoretical knowlege of tuners , but the fact they think 3 strings couple together can keep a similar motion synchronize together up and down, just escapes me.

It have been shown long time ago it does not exist or may be only for the first milliseconds.

Trying to get a hand on that process is all it is about. Nothing really fancy but something really interesting in the end.

What amazes me is that the amateurs tuners get those sort of things clearly more easily than some of the seasoned tuners, that have too hard time to put themselves in question, or to simply expand their horizon.
I recall how uncomfortable we are with unison an justness, and that may explain why once something is learned that "works" it is considered as the only one.

From what I could hear may be 10% of US tuners are creating a nice tone that suits me. That is yet good, for instance even on the NY Steinway classical recordings, many pianos are not so expressive (if compared with the German brother, this is a whole different world).

In those conditions, ET can be "boring" very easily.

Those comments highlight the true extent of stupidity existing in american piano technology these days! String-beaters like BDB ignore the damage they cause by their brutality, and choose to deflect their own ignorance onto others.

No one said better. The fact that american piano technicians don't recognise any difference at the level of the unison simply means they lack observational skills.

String falseness in the USA is outstanding: bashing strings down at all the contact points is recommend by manufacturers and dutifully carried out by unknowing piano technicians. For goodness sake gentlemen, at least be curious enough to take before-and-after measurements as you beat-up your pianos. If you document your work, you will SEE the damage you are causing! In the USA, this is a major problem, and the reason why there is no flexibility in the american approach to piano tuning--there is no room for it!

I challenge ANY american string beaters/seaters out there to post recordings of each string for a consecutive number of their notes. The rest of the world needs to hear how insane this problem really is. Falseness is measurable and definable--denying existence is futile. Anyone can use something like the Verituner to SEE pitch drift and pitch instability enough to make falseness definable and trackable.

A good string tone does not waver in pitch, it remains consistent--if you measure any differences from this standard, then you are dealing with various amount of falseness. That is what you should be observant of when you are beating your strings into submission at the terminations; that is what will worsen as you beat-up your pianos and worsen their overall tuning and tonal potentials.