Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Progressive Beat Speeds Tuned Aurally in One Pass!

You are just experiencing a bit of tough love.

I disagree and I've told you why. If you can counter my argument then do so. If you can't hear RBI from rolling unisons, you need to improve your ear because if you can't hear RBI beats from rolling unisons, you can't hear RBI beats. Maybe that's it. But you did listen to the filtered intervals, no? That sound, the sound of a clean beat, that's what I hear without the filtering. You see why I sense hostility? Maybe it's just frustration.

I tune double string unisons. I never listen to single strings so I never have them to record. Muting the piano after tuning could shift pitches up to 2 cents due to Weinreich.

I recorded this during an actual tuning, no fudging to make myself look better. I finished the temperament in one pass and thought, "Hmmm, sounds pretty good. Maybe I'll record it and measure it." I did this once before and it didn't come out as even, but I've been focusing on beat speed differences for a while now and believe my precision is improving. I got down to 1% on my beat speed difference test today.

However, for analysis, I require candidates to provide single string recordings.

Does the blooming impede your judgement of the progressions? And what about the presentation method? Do you think it would be useful as a tool for beginners or those wishing to improve their aural skills?

Of course I can hear the beats, I don't need a bandpass filter for that. But I wonder if the reason you don't demonstrate clean unisons is because you have trouble tuning them? If I'm giving a demonstration of something, I want it to be the best it possibly can be - not so easy "live", but you have all the time you want to produce clean recordings. Listen to what Grandpianoman posts - if you can do a similar quality, it would make your message much more powerful. You have a tendency to be very defensive - that's not a positive trait in a teacher (I know what it's like - I was a prof in a university for a while and have taught hundreds of courses professionally - you just have to have a thick skin and be, well, professional).

You tout your double open string technique - lets hear a demonstration of how good it can be. Then you'll bolster your credibility.

Paul.

Marc I I'll not say about beat speed, if you measured them no reason not to trust you, but the unison have no attack, that make those beat sound unfocused.
Intervals must sound firm, "rooted", solid, this is mostly due to a good attack and projection tone, partially due to voicing,(that "show you the way" but if the voicing is 'not ideal, strings and hammers are old, you still can tune a strong attack by playing strong enough to have the "body " of the tone appearing. (only above a certain level, you feel at this time the energy in the keys).

I wonder if you confuse blooming and enveloppe building.

Anyway my opinion with the way you tube double open strings is that you're too much moving the pins back and forth, it cannot allow the optimal result which is :

All pins torqued similarly. (I leave to you the maths for mechanics with more or less long NSL, it may certainly be true, but I only can obtain firm and stable tone by tuning high only and from an evened tension, hence the repeated playing until I feel the string do not move anymore)

Just if you had more torqued pins, your partials would moan less.

I am suspecting you are so much focusing on beats, That it make loose a little the necessary point of view from a little farther.

Certainly the equality relation between different interval beat speed can be used, may be by being used to recognize their events. But then you should be capable of playing both intervals together, as they are supposed to beat the same.
And notice if the result is sounding solid or no.

Regards

Please accept that I'm not criticizing for pleasure, just trying to say something useful.

Even on a mediocre instrument, intervals and chords should sound "rooted", solid, name escape me for that concept.

A friend check the F3F4 ladder by playing all notes together, for instance.
Any interval, harmonious or no, will sound thick and robust with good unison.

Tuning with only one mute, or with the sustain pedal engaged, hides the meaning if the robustness of tone is not apprehended.

The tuned attack will generate clean beats, too may be not as stable in speed as expected, but ringing clear.

This use of the word "bloom". These unisons might be perceived as bloom in some seats of some auditoria. but when close miked or heard up close, it is simply a whine. I'm not too sure a pianist appreciates excessive movement in a unison, particularly when playing under the direction of a conductor or in an otherwise collaborative rôle where waiting for the tone to develop is not an option.

A competent pianist can produce a tone that blooms by skilful timing of the sustain pedal, mostly including the shift pedal that throws the unstruck string out of phase, sometimes producing a deceptively huge sound in the right hands. This is often only available in the finest of pianos. A well set up NY does this really well, live

When my contract calls for "Tune and attend", a common request here for which triple tuning is charged, I will have the management find me an aisle seat on the right of the auditorium as we face the stage and towards the back. These are usually available since most piano audiences like to see the keyboard close up. I am often offered the seat of a professional critic who is not attending but they sit too far toward the front for my taste.

From here I can see the rear protrusion of the pedals on most pianos and all I have to do us look up when I hear a certain sound and see immediately how the pedals are being used.

I recommend regularly attending professional concerts to help complete the education of a tuner. Most managements would be delighted to offer their tuner a free seat if you ask. All states have a university or two with a music department giving regular concerts, mostly without charge. It's well worth the trouble. I hav travelled more than a couple of hundred miles to hear a legend in a certain concert hall, whether I'm paid or not although one of my ID cards will often secure me a free seat.
It is useful and enlightening to hear your own tuning/voicing as well as that of others from the vantage point of a listener particularly when played by a fine pianist.
What else could we possibly be aiming for??

DSU took me two years to develop. You can see a video on my website but people have already criticized it.

Nobody had to convince me of its benefits. I understood right away the power of it.

As far as thin skin goes, you are misreading me. Negative, nonconstructive comments on this forum don't mean anything to me. I try to politely continue a presence for the 90% of people who just read these posts, and for the valuable constructive comments I receive.

Your request to demonstrate DSU is an example of a negative nonconstructive comment because 1) I've already done that. If you've visited my site, you see that plus multiple articles explaining its benefits and uses, and 2) it's a moot point to the subject of this thread.

Mark,

Imagine you're a beginning piano tuning student trying to learn temperament. You experience the frustration of trying to hear beats in an octave, a fourth, a fifth, and thirds and sixths. The frustration of just getting through the 13 notes only to find that none of the beat speeds is progressive. You've even got some intervals wrong-sided. Add to that you're struggling with your stability because your arm doesn't yet understand the fine motor skills necessary to keep everything in place. Add to that you're practicing on junk instruments or anything you can find...

And along comes your piano tuning instructor who says you should master unisons simultaneously. By the way, it only takes two years. My guess is the beginning piano tuner is not going to appreciate the "power of it" quite like you do.

I've been to your site many times and have taken part in your quizzes on various topics. The best unisons were on the octave quiz, but I don't recall anywhere where you have audio examples of a full temperament, except for the recent one, where even you admit there is rolling.

Others have said that, in their opinion, it's not a moot point. This is negative constructive criticism, but your natural reaction is to attack and effectively say that you're right and others are missing the point. You do this in many of your posts, by the way. I already said that, in my opinion, your techniques will have more credibility if the examples you post of their application are exemplary - but even you have agreed they're not (even if it's not the main point of the topic at hand, which, in this case, is progressive beat speeds - though Kees's analysis shows that that is not the case either). As far as I recall, the only person ever to demonstrate truly progressive beat speeds was the Hamburg D owner who used Dirk's program. I seem to recall you poo-pooing the idea that any software uses entropic techniques, yet we have two examples of this now.

I admire your determination and desire to share what you've learned and look forward to reading the PTG article when it is open to all in October.

Paul.

Paul,

I have to take offense to your claim that this is not progressive M3's just because of Kees' measurements.

Let's look at the facts.

Facts:
- I measured all M3's as progressive. You can see that in the chart.
- Interval beat speeds vary so the measurement method is critical. We have to give the benefit of the doubt that where Kees measured the M3 that don't progress, is not where I was listening. (For this, it may behoove us to take Isaac's suggestion and only tune and measure the attack of the intervals.)
- If the M3 are not progressive, it is a criticism of my ability to hear small beat speed differences, since if they are not, and we can hear that, then I should have heard it and corrected it. It does not prove the invalidity of the method.

What I will do however, is eventually add my sequence to the list of intervals that can be played from a recording of temperament notes. Then if a M3 is not progressive, the window used to tune one of the notes should be wrong as well.

OK, fair point, as I have no way to verify which set of measurements is correct. Since Kees has been the "golden reference" of measuring other people's attempts at progressive M3s, I took his measurements seriously. Obviously your figures are different - in anycase, the lack of progression is small.

I still think it would be more interesting to have the full F3-A4 samples as this will tie in with your other tutorials on how to set the octave size for the F3-F4 and A3-A4 octaves correctly - or does this new technique not required that step anymore?

Also, what could be interesting, too, is whether the rate of progression is correct - I suppose this depends on iH (as everything else), but just a simple progression may not be "correct enough" for a good sounding ET.

Paul.

I have to take offense to your claim that this is not progressive M3's just because of Kees' measurements.

I am interested in tuning the attack, but I find that when I tune the attack strong, the body of the sustain is weak or wavering. Comments?