Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum An aural and visual demonstration of the Skeleton.

I know Bill Bremmer advocates using Contiguous Major thirds to set a good start to an equal temperament octave, and I started using it with the 4:5 ratios years ago, but I have added a bit of my own to this powerful procedure. In this procedure, there is no need to know what 4:5 sounds like, often a stumbling block for my students.

This video also shows a visual demonstration using pen and paper. The demonstration shows why the lower skeleton is so accurate at tuning C#4. Some of my more advanced students who use this procedure, have asked me why it is so accurate. The visual demonstration helps to explain.

http://howtotunepianos.com/tuning-equal-temperament-using-the-skeleton/

As always, polite, constructive criticism is appreciated.

Sorry, the word polite made me laugh out loud.


HW

Me too!

Mark,

In the lower skeleton, when you say the progression must be for example 6, 8, 10. Or 8,8,8. Or 7,8,9. Or 9,8,7. Or 11, 8, 5. You are speaking of an arithmetic progression. This is incorrect. That produces an error in the tuning of C#4.

In ET all progressions are geometrical. It's the ratio of the frequences which is constant, not their difference.

Consider this example: A4=440, A3=220, F3=173.8 which gives F3A3 = 11 bps, F4=347.6

When tuning C#4 to have an arithmetic progression we have:


C#4= 277.03


A3C#4 = 8.12 bps and C#4F4 = 5.24 bps. This corresponds to a -2.88 progression in the beat rates of the CM3s.

11-2.88 = 8.12

8.12-2.88 = 5.24


But compared to the correct tuning of C#4 which is 440*2^(-8/12)= 277.18 we have an error of

error= 1200*log2(277.03/277.18)= -0.95 cents.


Almost one cent.

PS. This is no more accurate than tuning directly A3C#4 = 8 bps

Mark,

I suggest that next time you find yourself at a PTG convention, either regional or national, that you check out the tuning pedagogy of Jack Stebbins and/or Rick Baldassin.

It strikes me that the Mark Cerisano "Skeleton" is the same as "Jack's Stack" is the same as "The Baldassin/Sanderson Temperament" sequence.

Jack Stebbins has been teaching a course for years called "Let the Piano Tell You", which uses the same technique of triangulating comparative beat speeds of stacked contiguous major thirds balanced against octaves. The difference being that Jack includes C#3 in the sequence. The rationale is that it is easier for beginning tuners to hear/compare beat speeds in the range of 5:7:9 rather than beat speeds of 9:11:13. The technique is the same as yours however - mashing the C#s and the Fs around using the comparative beat speeds of the major thirds while maintaining octaves until a nice stack of increasing contiguous major thirds and clean octaves is reached.

Baldassin, in his class, goes even further and includes A2 in the sequence. I think his intention is to introduce the ~6:3 A2/A3 octave and the ~4:2 A3/A4 octave at the same time as getting the stack of thirds to increase in beat speed. Slightly more complicated, but in the end, it's the same.

Rafael, it seems like you are being overly pedantic just to pick an argument.

Mark is not suggesting that the tuning progression must be arithmetic, but rather, to change evenly as a means towards achieving the goal. "Evenly" is only an approximation and it is not necessary to talk about exact arithmetic or geometric at this stage.

The intent to establish a systematic method is much better than just flapping around randomly back and forth to get progressive CM3rds, which most likely usually happns.

Mark is doing his best to present a systematic way of undertaking a difficult tuning task for students. Do you have a method that would help students to get a reasonable CM3rd sequence?

Chris S. Thanks for the comment. I read about Stebbins' method, but the C#3 he uses involves a lot of temporary settings, AFAIK.

The real accuracy in this method happens after the skeleton. It starts with setting D4 so that F3D4 bisects F3A3 and A3C#4 and continues like that for the whole temperament, windows getting smaller and smaller as you go along.

But the bisection is not an arithmetic difference bisection. Its an aural one. For example, when you try to fit the three speeds changing evenly, and create daylight between them, they may sound even, but in order for you to hear the differences, you must create arithmetically uneven speeds. That's how the log scale works. I.e. the speeds wouldn't be 7,8,9 (those are just examples anyway), it would work out more like 7.2, 8, and 9.4. The human ear will tell you the difference between 7.2 and 8 is the same as 8 and 9.4, for example. (But the method doesn't use numbers)

When using the numbers as I do, students "get it".

Chris Leslie,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share true knowledge, compared to the vague and erroneous descriptions given by Mark Cerisano.

Of course I have a better way to present a systematic way of undertaking a "difficult" (as you say) task for students.

Here it is. And by following this accurate and professional method you'll discover that this is not so difficult for students:

Mid Range Piano Tuning - By Bill Bremmer




Is that the way you tune?

If it is then I suggest you to study the document of Bill Bremmer. There you'll find a systematic and accurate way of tuning the CM3s, from F3 up to A4. With no guesses, no "back and forth", no fictious "incredible accuracy" as Mark promises and never demonstrates.





So now you know what Mark is trying to do...

Mark has said what he said, no less, no more. And all I did, was to follow his instructions, and they lead to an error of one cent in the tuning of C#4.

If you follow Bremmer's instructions you won't get to such a big error.

And if one is invited to guess what Mark suggests or tries to do, I'll tlell you what I honestly think:

The more I read his posts, the more I have the impression that Mark is using the Piano World Forums (plural) to make selfpromotion.

He's not interested in discussing technical aspects of tuning. Each time I've tried to talk with him he gives me the same disgusting answer: Mine is better than yours, I know more than you and the like... or even worst, he denies what he previously said, as he did with the 20 hours courses.

To my eyes his only interest is in showing what he does and how he does and to make it public!

I wonder if this the purpose of this Forums. I believe there are fees to pay to make advertising in PW.

Do you know that Mark has been banned from PW for 2 weeks, if my memory doensn't fail, for this very reason?

And he continues to make post after post showing his way of doing. And refusing to accept arguments against what he does.
He sells tuning courses 20 hours long and he argues that it is possible to teach tuning in 20 hours with his marvelous methods.

The video of the Tuneable filter to hear beats, is erroneous as he was hearing A6 and he said he was hearing A5. The beat rate is twice as much as he says. And he presents it as an accurate way to sensibilize students to beat rate recognition!

That is not professional.

If he makes a mistake, the less he can do is correct it and apologize.

In this very thread he announces he knows the Bremmer's method and he says he has "added a bit of his own" to supress a "stumbling block for his students".

and all he does is to introduce vague and inaccurate instructions which lead to error.

Mark is obviously promoting himself, but so is every other technician who posts his profession, company name, and web address.

I have to commend Mark for his clear and upbeat presentations. This is the third of his videos that I've watched and all have offered practical and useful information.

I do understand someone becoming annoyed when, instead of saying, " This is how I use the system," Mark seems to be taking credit for inventing something which was developed over 200 yrs ago.

Besides promoting himself, Mark is also promoting the craft of piano technology. Something I think technicians in the forum do appreciate and something I wish I could do more of.

I can still hear my uncle Bill saying over and over to me, "Lady Luck favors those who try."


Enjoy

As I can see it, this is a case where someone attempts a task that is over his capacity.
Maybe he can try a few decades later.

Yes, Bill Bremmer does present a very good demonstration of tuning CM3rds.

Hi Mark~~
I just watched your video. I commend you in your efforts in wanting to help folks learn to tune pianos. It's a huge undertaking.

I'm going to free-associate here, so hopefully you'll understand some of my confusion and suggestions and I hope you don't take what I say as being out of line.

I completed nearly 300 tunings before I was injured, so no doubt I developed some good habits and bad. Fortunately, I took some good advice early on and my customers were pretty happy with my work. I'm on the sidelines now.

Now, while on the topic of tuning, it might be a good idea for you to teach students how to replace strings on their practice piano, especially with the high number of adjustments needed to render a string using your method of tuning-detuning unisons, then going back an forth adjusting intervals. Beginners might not have the degree of body control you do and many will probably have older pianos with more brittle strings. Learning to replace strings is an invaluable skill for a tuner anyway.

It appears in your video you are you assuming your students understand how a 6:3 and a 4:2 octave is defined and what it sounds like? You don't explain how to create or do checks on either of them, but you use the term "window".

You also say that the F3-A3 beat speed is not important at the onset, but you continue to talk about beat speeds between intervals and demonstrate how important they are throughout the video. You talk about how accurate your method is, but don't demonstrate it on your piano with a ready-to-expand temperament. Maybe you should simply lay down the bearings using your method from start to finish, while using a text overlay describing exactly what you are doing. You show folks how some of it is done, but you don't actually do it yourself. Tune the temperament, then an octave above and below it to show how accurate and simple it is.

You talk about intervals increasing by one beat per second, but one or both unisons in your example beats more or less at one beat per second. That is wildly difficult to follow. It's impossible for me to hear if an octave is clean (4:2, 6:3 etc) if the unisons are beating themselves.

Also, I hear unisons that are wildly out as you are attempting to demonstrate beat progressions. You go back and get a somewhat solid unison, but then knock it out again when you are adjusting beats between the intervals you are attempting to create. It is very confusing. You're doing two things at once, both of which require a high level of concentration and body control. I am not sure how a beginner watching will benefit from it.

It seems that getting a student to hear and control fast beating intervals to set a temperament while at the same time tuning and detuning unisons might create some confusion.

To set a temperament, you should perhaps avoid unison tuning and detuning at the same time. I perceive it as counter-productive. I am sure an advanced piano technician can pretty much get away with such a method if needed, but not a beginner. I would think one can't hear the piano's temperament if the unisons are not solid.

You say your Double String unison method forces you to produce clean unisons, but they don't exist in your video and it makes listening to fast intervals, including the two demonstrated solid octaves impossible to hear.

Sorry if I am overly repetitive and/or missing something here, but this video seems to create more confusion than less. I'd recommend you redo it for better clarification.

No one need to pat Mark Cerisano, RPT, on the back--I don't think that is what he is after. I understand that he always seem to be self-promotiony, but I think maybe he's an upbeat person, who cares about piano technology, and really wants to help make things better. At least he is trying something, what are the rest of you doing?

And then he sincerely asks us for feedback so that he can continue to improve--which he is (i.e., the videos are getting better). Mark Cerisano, RPT, I applaud your efforts, appreciate your improvements, and look forward to more.

It might be productive to talk about the trigger words/phrases that are inflaming so many people here. I don't know what they all are, so they will need to come from the people that they actually bother, but from what I've gleaned: Mark Cerisano, RPT (i.e., they don't like seeing/hearing your name so often); anything that indicates you've done or developed something (e.g., "my" methodology)--it comes across like you are trademarking something that is "yours"; they don't like being reminded that you have students. (i.e., avoid that term whenever possible); they don't really want to know your experiences and what justifies your approach--just do it, be yourself, and don't feel like you need to justify your statements.

People: if you have a problem with his words, tell him now--so he can modify the approach--or hold your peace and stop blaming him for it.

I have long advocated the use of open string unisons, especially in the learning process: it forces the brain to listen and think differently! The one-mute tuners of the past were not minimalists, they heard what they were doing, and it was resonant/consonant.

I don't know how many technicians here have learned to hear through a not-absoultly-perfect union trichords to observe the "beat rates." This is because 'beat counters' listen more to the decay/sustain, while 'beat feelers' use more of the attack/hold to make their assessment. Open string tunings require the use of both observations simultaneously: the attack/hold for the temperament and the decay/sustain for the unison quality. If you are communicating with technicians here that don't possess both kinds of listening skills--especially the ones that can't tune via the attack--they are always going to be confused by the sound and think it confusing. There is nothing much you can do about that unless they take the time to learn to listen.

@Inlanding:

Very good post.

I am sorry to hear about your injury and wish you a full recovery.



HW

I have told my problems before, but there is no harm repeating.

Yes, using the forum for self promoting is annoying.

There is too much "words" but little "doing" to prove the "words" are right.

Both "words" and the little "doing" are not full proof if not erroneous, hence unconvincing.


As I said above, this is more a capacity issue.
We can appreciate the effort, but not the outcome always.

When unisons are not clean, the beat speeds produced by an RBI with that unison can still be heard, but it "rides" on the roll of the unison. We can learn to listen past that, but also recognize it when it occurs so that we can find and fix unisons that have drifted.

Have heart. I don't think it will take you that long.

Me ?!

Thanks for the detailed post Inlanding. Very helpful, and polite.

Here are my comments:



Absolutely. It's my next task.


Another great idea for a video.


Beat speed difference sensitivity is very important. F3A3 = 7bps is not, because the skeleton will set it according to the piano.


It's a task but I did do it to a temperament I did at regular speed, too fast for many to follow. That was a bad idea.

Now that's three videos on my list. I have probably 50 floating around in my head, so thank you for helping me figure out which are more important.

Could you be more specific? Which video? What time?


Yes, they will not. The method is meant to be used. It is in the using that the student improves.

Beating unisons still produce audible beats with RBI, they're just not as easy to hear. More incentive for students to clean them up.


We're "stepping" the pitch along. Once they get that, it becomes second nature.


It's not easy to teach unisons in a short course. Unisons are so important. Sure, it's ok to say "just make sure you practice getting good unisons", but DSU forces the student to learn how to create clean unisons right away. Learning to tune a piano is painful. The DSU method is front loaded with pain.


Again, please list the specific example. Video and time please. That would be very helpful.



I will not disagree. If I can imagine a better way, I'll do it. Perhaps it could be shorter.

Thanks again.

Hi, Mark ~~ I'll try to be thorough in my response to your request:

I don’t hear any solid unisons in this (your) thread's video. What do you mean by the, "DSU method is front loaded with pain", or "Exactly, Inherent motivation".

My experience is that learning piano care and learning to tune a piano is more of an iterative process.

My suggestion is to separate out the topic of practicing unisons from the topic of skeleton interval setting, i.e., not mixing the two.

As you requested, here are the times - the video is the one you originally placed in this thread.

C#4 at :39 seconds
F3 at 1:11
You say, F3 - F4 octave maybe wide 4:2, maybe narrow 6:3 @ 1:55 — both unisons are not quiet - they beat (or roll). If you instead used a single string, it’d be much easier to hear intervals in your skeleton system and so would it be in hearing clean octaves.

You say, “Each one (interval) changing by one beat per second” at 2:47 - the unisons are not solid

You say, "That is why the C# is precise” @ 3:23, then you lower the C# again at 3:44. When exactly is it precise in the sequence you are demonstrating?
You lower two strings of C# into a unison that is beating @ 3:51, then raise it again at 4:06 - how do you know it is 8 beats from A3?
You lower F4 in a unison that beats @ 5:27
"Double String unisons method requires clean unisons" @ 8:17 to 8:28 “The most important thing in a piano tuning”. Maybe you are not using exactly your DSU method in this video?