I wanted to point out to you guys the discussion about perfect 12ths tuning on the CAUT list. Really it is about the new tuning program you can get on your I-phone. It uses Bernhard Stoppers program and theories of perfect 12th tuning.
Kent Swafford posted a mp3 of two pianos tuned together using Pure Tone (I think that's the name) Remarkably good and the tunings are considered high quality. He tuned a Bosey Imperial and a S&S D.

The amazing thing is, the program uses no memory. It doesn't matter whether you tune one note on one piano and then one on another. Order of notes tuned makes absolutly no difference.

I posted some of Stoppers arguement in the tuning pin topic.

Computer programs use memory, period.

Perhaps you meant this one uses a different approach, where the whole tuning is not calculated before starting to adjust the tension, or something like that?

The original mp3 file seems to be gone, do you still have it? If so, could you please upload it somewhere for those of us who didn't manage to get it?

This is very interesting (in both computational and tuning matters). Thanks for posting this here

I meant temporary memory. It doesn't store any previous data.

Here is Stoppers site;
http://www.piano-stopper.de/html/tunic_onlypure1.html

The Bosey and D using it;
http://www.kentswafford.com/mp3/d_dorf.mp3

Stopper's taking a beating in the iPhone app store review section. The so-called "Tunic Guitar" goes for Free (A=430Hz), lite for $25 and the full for $60. I remember the piano one going for $600+, but I didnt see that in iPhone yet.

So if the piano is $600, and you get 88 notes, for $6.82 per note. On guitar, you have the five notes there, so that would make $34.09. The lite seems like it is a deal at an almost 9 dollar savings.

The lite doesn't have the ability to adjust its scales though. The pointy interface doesn't seem eye-pleasing as he describes it in the store, although it's great for accuracy and visibility.

Has anyone else had any experience with the Stopper Tunic OnlyPure software? The tuning of the Bosendorfer and Steinway D sounded great...thanks for that link!

The tunings are getting rave reviews

I heard Stopper's tuning at the National in June. I must say I was blown away.


He played an octave - it sounded fine, nice and clean. Then he played the tonic- fifth interval and the fifth - octave interval. They sounded good - a nice, slow roll. Then he played the tonic - fifth - octave. It was absolutely pure and clean! The beats canceled each other out. It was amazing.

When playing big chords with both hands, any key: after the initial attack, the chord just stood there in the room, solid and clean, it sounded like a church organ.

You can calculate octave stretch and inharmonicity all you want - when the sounds makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end, you know something good is going on.

Here is an audio file of an Everett Spinet done in the same manner as the Bosey and D

http://www.kentswafford.com/mp3/cn.mp3

Forgive me for being a "party pooper" on this one guys. I'll probably take some heat for these comments, but I listened to these mp3 files (repeatedly). And I dont hear what you guys seem to be hearing.

First let me say I am not a fan of recorded piano music. Getting a good recording of a piano by itself, is a highly artistic thing, and few people achieve it with a high degree of success. I tolerate a piano with an orchestra or other instruments much better.

I think the tuning on the Bosie and the D were better than on the Everett Spinet (of course).
I was for the most part with you guys during the first 5 to 10 seconds of the recording, then to me it kind of falls apart. Listen to those unisons, especially in the upper end. Not good.
Listen to the Octaves being played together. They make my skin crawl. Very dirty like badly tuned fifths.

Overall I personally dont believe these recording are examples of excellent piano tuning.

Just my opinion, of course.

You're not going to get any heat from me Ron.

I have to say that I agree with Ron. Like he said, maybe it's the way the recording came across but, personally, I doubt that. It's the same on all of the tunings although, worse on the Everett. I heard out of tune unison's especially up in the higher treble area.

I didn't like the way the lower bass sounded either. I thought it was to sharp.

The further up he went, the flatter the octaves were in comparison to the mid range and lower notes, they weren't stretched. When playing 4 octaves together, it sounded pretty bad to me.

If you noticed, on every test, the further he went up, the faster he played it. People usually do that so that you can't hear it as well but, I could still pick it out. So, over all, while it was probably "ok" or, so he thought, it wasn't good enough to suit me. I wouldn't use a tuning that sounded like that in the end. Maybe too, it was the tuner not familiar enough with the tuning, I don't know but, I do know that I wasn't satisfied with the tuning overall.

Thanks for posting this Keith it sounds really interesting. I'm an aural tuner but I am looking at Reyburn Cybertuner and Verituner and would be interested in this as another option. I would really like to hear this on a piano that I could try out in person.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. I doubt that the tuning on this recording would have made the hair on the back of Jurgen's neck stand on end. ( Maybe on the top of his head).

It's too bad the recording is just a bunch of arpeggios I sure wouldn't be checking a tuning out that way if I got to sit down to one of these pianos. I would have liked to hear some long octaves and double octaves and some M3, M10 & M17 progressions. I would have liked to hear some sustained unisons in the mid range. I know from personal experience that a mediocre tuning can sound passable if you just play a bunch of chords and don't linger over the intervals too long.

The top end sounds really flat but I know that I stretch the last octave a more than Tunelab for example, which I have been playing around with. I just can't live with the flat sound and until I start hearing otherwise from my clients, I won't be changing that any time soon. Nice to hear from others on this. The treble stretch sounded off to me.

The spinet sounds really bad but then spinets always do. I would have liked to hear some chromatic octaves around the bass tenor break and some double octaves held long enough to hear how much they wobble.

I’m not a tuner-technician nor a physicist, but when I read things like this, I have my doubt about the seriousness of Mr Stooper:


"It is not possible to reach this precision with the usual electronic tuning devices or the usual two-note aural bearing plan techniques. Since the devices jugde the pitch and frequency in the frequency domain, it is necessary, due to the HEISENBERG UNCERTAINITY to analyze the signal over a relative long time. Tuning those three-note octaves and fifths combinations aural to pure state, aural pitch setting is as accurate as tuning unisons aural, what defintitvely does not work with nowadays ETDs."


A rapid search in Wikipedia: "In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the position and momentum of a particle cannot both be known simultaneously. "

What has Heisenberg uncertainty principle to do with piano tuning?

Another example:

"[...] the FRACTAL SYMMETRY of the beat-relations to the interval relations in the “stopper-tuning”. Since due to the extension of the tuning matter FROM TWO DIMENSIONS TO THREE (AND MORE) DIMENSIONS the octaves/fifths problem dissappears, the mighty octave must be asked in place."

He also speaks of supersymmetry...

I would be interested to have the opinion of a physicist/mathematician...

I have had a listen to the audio file, and I can tell you this is not a fair example of this tuning. To really judge this type of mathematical equation, I feel the instrument needed to form a fair opinion, would be something in the 6ft. range or longer. Underneath this, the math scale (on the plate) produces too much error. On the spinet it may not be out of tune unisons, it may be a case of poor string or poor scaling.

As far as running this by a physicist, I would think that they might be able to give you the math on a page or academically, correct or not correct, but with each instrument the math may change slightly according to the attributes or the shortcomings of each instrument. This would be where tuning changes from a science to an art. Each piano is slightly different is very subtle ways. The tuner’s job is to find the “feel” of where the math equation “sounds best” on each and every piano. Sometimes the math has to be abstracted considerably for the sound to line up correctly, especially on small uprights.

Like Thomson I would like to try this temperament out on my own, up close and personal.

Dan, I posted the link to the long grands. The spinet recording was done in response to the asking. It's the comparison.

I didn't ask if the piano was still strip muted. I would think you would leave it in to check the tuning. I thought the Everett sounded great... for a spinet

Sorry Keith,
I missed that, my fault, I will go back and review, don’t know what is wrong with me lately…..

Thanks for all the comments about the audio files of tunings done with Bernhard Stopper's software.

I think the tunings are good, but then, since I was the one who did the tunings, I would think that, wouldn't I? 8^)

These were real tunings of real pianos; they were not done under lab conditions. All unisons were open, no mute strips. The recordings were done in the field with an inexpensive digital audio recorder.

There is no perfect tuning among tunings done by someone other than oneself. It is easy to find fault with a tuning when you were not the one who had to work out the compromises.

Not everyone will like these tunings. If you are one who doesn't like the tunings, then don't give another thought to them or to Stopper's software.

However, plenty of people will like the tunings, and for those people, I am reporting a new software tool that is available.

Thanks,

Kent Swafford

Hey Keith,

I went back now and listened to the other files.

Yes the tuning sounds better on a better piano no doubt about it. Ok, A sharp, D flat and D there is something wrong up top with these. In the top two octaves, I can hear flatness or something,... the circle of fifths is off somewhere. I really need to be there to determine what I am hearing correctly.

The spinet, I didn’t think did the tuning justice, but remember it is a spinet. For me it sounds like a nicely tuned spinet. You can hear the poor tones on that one, mostly poor string, not the tuning. Actually the top of the spinet sounds better than the other two.

I would agree with you about checking the tuning by leaving the strips in. However, I check the “sound of the tuning” by taking an octave and a third, and playing chromatically down or up with all tools removed from the instrument.

There should be a smooth roll increasing slightly all the way up and the reverse going down. Also if you strike 4 C’s or 4 F’s all at once and see how much “wind” there is in the stretch.

I can’t seem to find your mention of other information in the tuning pin thread? I saw the posting earlier last week before you started this thread but no luck in finding it……………….

Hello Kent,

Welcome to this forum. I am an aural tuner only. Do you have a place where I can get the mathematical equation to try this out myself, or is it just for machine tuners?

Piano QC, it would be nice if you spelled the gentleman's name correctly...

Stopper will be the first to tell you that the uniquness of this tuning is so sublte as to not, or hardly, become apparent in short pianos, never mind PSOs like the Everett.

And while he may bring in some references and terms that you or I don't understand, please don't discount him or his work for that. And above all, do not doubt his seriousness, especfially being a non-tech as you are.

Stopper is an extremely bright man. He studied to become a piano builder under one of Germany's foremost master craftsmen piano makers, who accepted only top-notch applicants. He has quite the resume.

In the end, it is the tone and character of the piano that matters. And having heard, felt and experienced it, I am now a believer. Do I use his software? No. I am an aural tuner. But maybe in the very near future that will change.....

I’m just a little bit surprised to find terms like "Supersymmetry" and "Heisenberg uncertainty principle" in Mr. Stopper’s documents as these are terms always used in the context of Quantum Mechanics (theoretical physics) and (to my knowledge) have nothing to do with macroscopic world. But, OF COURSE, I can be wrong. Perhaps Mr. Stopper could explain what he means...

He means that his last two degrees are More of the Same, and Piled Higher and Deeper.

sorry, double post

Either way, a piano is either in tune, or out of tune. Whether mean tone, ET tuning, Well Tempered, Stopper tuning or what have you, if the unison's are not correct, the piano is out of tune with either tuning regardless of said tuning.

I discount the Stopper tuning in that regard for this reason. The fact that if you listen to most notes played in the center section, comparing them to most notes played in the upper register, in particular, the utmost highest register, the upper register is actually quite flat of the mid section and, many unison's are out of tune as well.

Now, maybe this is the way this particular tuning is designed to be. This, I do not know. But, I was trained that, either a piano is in tune, or it's not. Which is it? In this case, it is not. Don't take it wrong, I'm not being sarcastic...

That's what I'm pointing out.

Jerry, are you talking about the Bosen, and The D or the Everett? An everett spinet could have so many false beasts and strings out of phase that really it is unfair to complain about that.

For the sake of a true test, a strip muted piano would be better.

All 3 Keith. Of course, the Everett sounded the worst.

I'm a math student.

Though I'm not an expert in math or physics, I suspect that there's a little fuzziness going on here.

First of all, as you mentioned, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle really only applies to material on the quantum level (we can sometimes try to apply quantum mechanics to the real world, but any conclusions we might draw are very negligible). So I'm just as stumped as you are - I have absolutely no idea what this could have to do with piano tuning.


I once read a book called Fractals in Music by Charles Madden. There was quite a bit of discussion on self-similarity, which he describes using the concept of "Cauchy sequence". To illustrate, consider hooking a video camera up to your TV, where the TV displays whatever the camera captures (have you ever done this before?). What if I point the camera toward the TV itself? We can see the TV within a TV, and a TV within that TV; the "sequence" will go on forever, but we will see that eventually, the TV's get arbitrarily close together, almost to the point where the distance between them will vanish. If we were to zoom in further, we will still observe the same configuration. Perhaps this same effect can be seen when you view a mirror with a mirror.

So, Madden talks about how the harmonic series forms a Cauchy sequence. We can see this by examining the series for A-55: 55Hz, 110, 165, 220, 275, 330, etc... If we look at the ratios between a term and its preceding, they are: 2, 1.5, 1.333333..., 1.25, and so on. If we continue, we adjacent terms will get closer and closer to each other (and, actually, this sequence will converge to 1) - we say that this sequence in particular is indeed Cauchy. Given this, we might conclude that the harmonic series is self-similar.

The actual excerpt involves talk of "Fractal Symmetry" and tuning in "higher dimensions". Fractals are very peculiar objects that exhibit self-similarity, a type of symmetry. It could be that "Fractal Symmetry" really means self-similarity. More clarification is needed. And, again, the talk of "higher dimensions" could perhaps refer to techniques in modeling the vibrations of a string, for instance, by using ideas from Linear Algebra to find a (possibly infinite dimensional) vector space to do it. But, this is such a vague statement, and really needs more clarification.

My personal opinion of those excerpts is that they are written to make it appear that there is something very deep (and perhaps intimidating) about this method. So, I wouldn't take it very seriously.

Please let me know if I could perhaps provide more clarification on some of these ideas, or if you have any comments.

-Matt

His statement about the uncertainty principle was made in reference to his tuning device having to take a longer time to determine the note placement, not the actual note placement. It seems to be an explanation of why his device isn't as fast or something.
You are right, it has nothing to do with tuning but the actual physics involved in reading sound waves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is true, it just appears like that is what he is talking about.

Ah well. If people wish to trash the recordings, that's fine.

Here is a description of the recordings, so you will know exactly what it is you are trashing -- or appreciating.

I offer an audio recording of a Steinway D and a Bösendorfer Imperial tuned together with Stopper's software. By the way, PureTuner tunes the notes of the scale down to C0, so all 97 of the Bösendorfer's notes can be tuned directly by PureTuner.

I have uploaded an audio file to:

http://www.kentswafford.com/mp3/d_dorf.mp3

My recording attempts to show that each piano is well-tuned with itself and that the pianos also are tuned together quite well. The Steinway plays first and should be on the right. The pianos are side by side. In the recording you hear Steinway arpeggios, then Bösendorfer arpeggios, a Bösendorfer chord of nature progression, a Steinway chord of nature progression, and finally a chromatic scale played on both pianos together.

The recording was not done under "laboratory" conditions; these are real tunings of real pianos; there may be questionable unisons in the high treble, especially on the Bösendorfer. You are welcome to come try to tune them yourself if you think you can do better!

I believe the results that are heard in the recording are good. These results are interesting given how PureTuner was able to accomplish the tunings without taking readings off of either piano in order to calculate a tuning before beginning to tune.

Although the Steinway D and Bösendorfer Imperial have widely disparate scales, and tuning them together is a good demonstration of PureTuner's capabilities, some are wondering how well PureTuner can tune a spinet.

There is another audio file at:

www.kentswafford.com/mp3/cn.mp3

This is an audio recording of the results of a tuning with PureTuner of a Cable-Neson spinet built by Everett. Everett spinets have some of the highest inharmonicity on the planet. The recording follows the form set by the previous Steinway/Bösendorfer recording: arpeggios, chord of nature progression, chromatic filled-in triple octave across entire keyboard, chromatic 12ths across entire keyboard, and finally some chromatic 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, and 6ths in the midrange. I believe the results are good, and as always, PureTuner took no readings from the piano in order to calculate a tuning. One just boots the program, chooses a pitch level, and starts tuning in any order.

Thanks.

I looked into it a little more, and it does indeed seem that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does have an effect on reading the vibrations of a string. The main result is that the longer you attempt to read the frequency, the easier it will be to determine.

An informal discussion can be found here: http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html

Thanks Coolkid! I will show this to my father-in-law, who is a retired professor of mathematics.

Whew! Happy I wrote "I can be wrong"...

How does this square with the common understanding that the degree of stretch needed for a good tuning depends on the inharmonicity of the strings? With the SAT, CyberTuner, TuneLab, and Verituner, the target pitches are dependent on the inharmonicity of the particular strings in that piano. The first three of these devices take inharmonicity measurements ahead of time, and the Verituner takes measurements as you tune. In exchange, Verituner places some reasonable limitations on the order of tuning. Even purely aural tuning, when measured afterwards, shows the tendancy to make the overall stretch depend on the inharmonicity.

If Stopper's PureTuner software allows tuning in any order without pre-measurements, then supposedly I could start tuning at C8 if I so desired. That means the software would have to already know the target pitch of C8 before any inharmonicity information is available. Whatever that target pitch is, it would have to be the same for a high-inharmonicity piano and a low-inharmonicity piano. Has anyone posted a typical Stopper tuning as measured by, say, a SAT?

Hey, I've been holding my breath waiting for Jerry Groot to post his own set of audio files! Seriously though, I'm glad Kent took the time to explain what the files were about (which he had explained on the CAUT list; Keith started this thread by posting the link without a full explanation). Tuning with 3:1 intervals in the high treble can result in more contracted octaves than those tuned by 4:1 double octaves. So that is probably part of what Jerry was commenting on.
BTW, Kent is running the OnlyPure program on a Windows Mobile PDA , which has been available for about a year. I await the iPhone version, although I'll need to have a hands on session with the program before I part with my $$.

“Ah well. If people wish to trash the recording, that’s fine.”

I don’t agree with this statement. People have offered their opinion, and their preferences. This is what I am reading…………… as you have stated previously Kent, some folks will like this and others will not. Some folks are Dodge people. Others drive a Chevy.

“You are welcome to come try to tune them yourself if you think you can do better!”

Would tuners be “doing it better” with the Stopper temperament or with what they use at the present time?

Perhaps you are over-reaching with these comments?

quote:
Hey, I've been holding my breath waiting for Jerry Groot to post his own set of audio files!

Now that's kind of s smirky statement there, Patrick. I'm sure if Mr. Groot wants to post some audio files of his tuning, he will do so.
But it sounds kind of sarscastic in light that he was simply giving an opinion, just like we all are doing.

This thread began with several people giving opinions about how great this temperament is. Maybe it is. I'm not questioning that. But anytime someone posts their work there, they open themselves up to both positive and negative feedback.

I for one did not hear what the others were raving about when I listened to the mp3's. But note I qualified my opinion by stating that recordings to me bring out the inherent falicies
of pianos unless they are recorded under the most ideal circumstances.

Don't be snippy, you guys. Kent is a respected member of the guild. His tunings, while maybe not immpecable, certainly were good enough to show the Stopper program to you. Maybe our estimation of our tunings is better when it can't be scrutinized so minutely as it can when it is recorded....

Kent,

I like the tuning on these recordings. I think I would be pretty happy to walk away from these pianos if I had done the tuning. I felt that the high treble sounded a bit flat in the first recordings that Keith posted but I don't hear that in this recording. I would really like to have the chance to sit down to a piano that has been tuned with the stopper program.

I can't pretend to understand the principles that this program employs but all that really matters is does it work, is it a useful tool? If this is the result then the answer is yes.

I still hate the sound of spinets, even when they are well tuned.

quote:
Perhaps you are over-reaching with these comments?

Woah. When I said it's fine to trash the recordings, I meant it, literally. One doesn't put recordings like this out there unless one is prepared to accept criticism.

It would be good if those criticizing the recordings knew exactly what they were hearing. That's all.

I originally posted this to PTG CAUT list, because I thought those who were familiar with tuning a Steinway to a Bosendorfer would be impressed with the tunings. That appears to have been true.

Thanks for the material on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Very helpful.

It would be interesting as Thompson says, to hear the tuning in person rather than via an internet recording played back through mere computer speakers. Perhaps it does sound better in person than it did being recorded and then played back in this manner.

It is interesting regardless that this thing can tune all of the notes on a Bose for one and do so without doing a check as some other programs are required to do. In further thinking on the matter, fine tuning with no mutes or strips isn't an easy task either.

Perhaps, at the next PTG Convention here in Grand Rapids Michigan next summer, we will get an opportunity to listen "up close and personal" to this program. That would prove interesting.

I would wonder what a concert artist might think of this tuning? Would you be satisfied with this type of tuning and the sound of it? But then again, they would probably have to set down and play the piano itself to form a good opinion one way or the other.

Any concert artists out there that might wish to contribute or pose their opinion on the subject?

Keith, I know who Kent is. I'm not trying to be snippy or offensive. Just stating my own opinion on what I heard is all. Perhaps I should have tried writing it differently. :-)

Patrick, I thought you were kinda snippy though. :p I presume that you're joking of course but, either way, I don't have the time or desire to post that stuff and have no clue how to anyway...

I'm just tossing out my opinion as I said about what I heard, like some others here, that's all. No offense intended to anyone out there.

But, if you really want to know what kind of work I do or, what my tunings sound like? Just call our chapter president and ask him what he thinks of me and my work... I'll be glad to give you his number if you want it.

I'm not a physicist, but one specific thing I seem to remember about this principle has to do with the quantum experimentation context it arose out of: On the quantum level it's impossible to do measurements without the possibility that the method of measurement itself will affect a quantity being measured. Measuring one quantity is done with the cost of actively changing the other quantity. I don't see how Stopper's device changes the actual pitch of a string but, even if it did, it seems a little goofy to me -- and a stretch -- to take a principle derived from a totally different context and apply it to piano tuning.

I'd be interested to hear Robert Scott's concerns addressed, if anyone's able to do that.

Kent S., thanks for making an appearance here. I hope you'll hang around and contribute more in the future.

Jeff

Jeff,

I posted a link above explaining this phenomenon in respect to measuring the frequency of vibrations on a string. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does apply on this level, even though it might not necessarily be obvious.

Check it out and see what you think.

You know, for the heck of it, I recorded my own tuning onto my cell phone after I did a concert tuning on a Steinway D. Holy MOLY what a difference!

I had no clue how rotten a recorded tuning could sound. Especially on a cell phone!!

While the tuning itself was fine, I double checked afterward to make sure nothing had changed. My octaves, unison's etc., were all where they were supposed to be in perfect tune. So, I recorded it again THREE TIMES with the exact same results.

After listening to the recording a few minutes later I thought, WOW, these cell phones sure do a rotten job of reproducing good tunings big time!!!

That made me realize that I no doubt, jumped to conclusions on Kent's Stopper tuning and learned a valuable lesson. The tuning we do will not come out the same recorded onto something as chintzy as a cell phone. Even on a better quality recorder, unless you maybe spend thousands on the recording device, it will not sound the same as being there in person. So, Kent's tuning was probably just fine. I'm sure that the fact that it was recorded and then sent through the internet, is what seemed to have changed things possibly even more so.

I thought this was important to point out for future reference.

The piano is one of the hardest instruments to record well even if you have a pair of DPA 4006's or a pair of Earthworks PM40's.

I agree, the piano is extremely hard to get a good recording of. It takes extremely good, ie. expensive mics to get their true sound.

I too feel I was too hard on Kent's Stopper temperament. I extend to him my apology.

Good point Jerry,....good for future reference.

"The tuning we do will not come out the same recorded onto something as chintzy as a cell phone. Even on a better quality recorder, unless you maybe spend thousands on the recording device, it will not sound the same as being there in person." Jerry Groot

--------
And how!!! 'Takes really good (expensive) mics and a recording engineers knowledge of placement and processing to record a piano well. I never even bother to try to evaluate the tuning on a recorded piano. Not enough information comes through the mics.

I listened to the pianos at the PTG convention in Anaheim, and I also listened some to Mr. Stopper's explanations. I was not at all favorably impressed with either the tunings or his discussions. Based only on his explanations, I feel that the software is flawed because, as Robert Scott mentioned, it does not seem to have the ability to adjust to the individual piano's inharmonicity. This is a fundamental requirement of any piano tuning software or device, in order to begin to approximate what an aural piano tuner does naturally.

I have to give a disclaimer to my opinion of his tunings. I had a very hard time really listening to the piano tunings at the convention. Mr. Stopper remained very close to me all the time, and seemed to be trying very hard to elicit positive comments from me while I was testing the pianos. It was not a pleasant experience, and I would have really enjoyed just sitting and listening for 10 minutes or so, in order to get a better understanding of why I didn't like what I was hearing.

Don Mannino

Dear Mr. Mannino,
I apologize for having stolen 5 minutes of your valuable time.
Probably the beating of octaves and double octave caused the dislike of what you heard. Unfortunately i had no luck to come into deeper discussions with you why i am doing so.

My tuning software does indeed taking consideration of inharmonicity.

Best regards,
Bernhard Stopper

I want add that the tuning Mr. Mannino listened to and he is referring here was later commented by David Andersen "Angels flying out of the piano"
(A Steingraeber concert grand i prepared for David Anderesen)

Bernhard Stopper

The spinet sounds great to me. I'm not a tuner but I've played plenty of spinets that have lots of inharmonicity and the recording sounds like you could actually make music with that one anyway. Of course the best thing would be to have two recordings of the same piano, one with a traditional tuning and one with this special tuning. One MP3 of each, please!

I'm an aural tuner who just did my first ETD tuning with Tunelab Pro. So am not that familiar with all of the ETDs, especially Stopper's. I don't understand the discussion of poorly tuned unisons. I would think that the ETD is only used to tune one string of a key. That string becomes the reference for that key. The unisons for that key then should be tuned aurally against the reference string, not by use of the ETD. The quality of the unison tunings then are a reflection of the quality of the human tuner, not the ETD.

I did find that Tunelab's spectral display was useful in roughing in the unisons in the high treble, but then fine-tuned them all by ear to get them beatless. Does the Stopper system have some system for fine tuning unisons better, or quicker, than could be accomplished aurally?

I think Stopper's tuning is more straightforward than the impression this discussion may leave. Traditionally, tunings, if there were no inharmonicity, would produce perfect octaves. The Stopper tuning, with no inharamonicity, would produce perfect twelths. The theory behind this is at Stopper's website, and no doubt he does a better job explaining it than I would.

I've looked at Stopper's website and there is no explanation at all of his temperament.

Is there a book or any other source to consult on the Stopper's temperament?

I had the same problem. There are real problems with his web site. Play with google enough you can find some info on it. Here is a page on some information on the theory, although I haven't had time to read it yet.

http://www.piano-stopper.de/html/stopper_tuning1.html

The basic idea is that a it is based on making 12ths beatless instead of octaves. A 12th is an octave and a fifth. An example would be C4 to G5. The frequency of G5 is 1.5 times that of C5, which is 2 times the frequency of C4. That means G5's frequency is 3 times that of C4's. Their are 19 semi-tones between C4 and G5. As always, the frequencies of the semi-tones progress exponentially. So the frequency between a note and the note a semi-tone below it is the 19th root of 3. Using that relationship, the frequency of G5, which is 19 semi-tones above C4, ends up being 3 times that of C4, the expected results. Using this relationship you'll see that you get similar, but slightly different ratios for the approximations to just intervals than you do if you use the twelfth root of two semi-tone steps.

I understand that much about it. Why that should result in better tunings, I don't know yet. I just found out about this yesterday, so haven't had time to thoroughly research it.

Hope this helps.

Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the mathematical derivation that purports to show that the uncertainty principle applies to musical waves is utter hogwash.

The derivation starts with the formulas for the uncertainty principal and for energy, but on the 6th line of the math, the author introduces the energy of a photon, and uses that to derive the result. What does the energy of a photon have to do with measuring the vibration of a sting? Right--nothing. Plus, one can disprove his theory practically--one can measure the frequency of an electronic signal with extreme accuracy--accuracy that is far better than his supposed proof indicates.

Bah, humbug!

I have not read all the different posts on the Stopper Tuning. I don’t need to because the theory is very simple. Beatless 3:1 twelfths are the goal, which will also produce narrow 6:2 twelfths. Just as any octave type (2:1, 4:2, etc) cannot be truly beatless and will also cause different pianos to sound, well, different, so will tuning beatless 3:1 twelfths. It should also be noted that this is not a frequency ratio, but a coincident partial match. Because of iH, the frequency ratio will be more than 1:3, the same as when tuning a beatless 2:1 octave the frequency ratio will be more than 1:2. I don’t believe that there can be a “one size fits all” stretch scheme that will be best for every piano. How could there be when every piano scale is different, every piano is voiced differently, is in a different environment, and has different ears listening to it?

I think it's not hogwash, however, this is more on the realm of information theory than on applied physics. It's about attempting to make EXACT measurements, instead of accurate ones.

Engineering is about "good enough", you need things to work, but don't have eternity or all the energy in the universe to accomplish that. Good enough sometimes mean VERY precise measurements, but that's not exact.

No you can't, it's not about practical matters. Extreme accuracy won't equal exactness, that's the point. Measurements are made UP TO some level of precision, and there is an error associated with them.

Check this link:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/uncertainty.html

They have some very nice pages on the acoustics of musical instruments.

I have to disagree--the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is very much about practical matters. It describes how precise measurements can be. This is by no means a philosophical topic. What's at stake in tuning a piano is being able to measure the difference between two or mores tones. What is needed is therefore precision, not exactness.

In the referenced article, the author states, "If you want to determine [middle] C with this precision 0.0001Hz, you need Δt of 800 sec, or 13 min 20 sec." I believe by precision, he means resolution, and that's the only thing of consequence when dealing with musical tones. The requirement for absolute accuracy is relatively non-critical.

The difference in period between middle C and another note that differs by .0001 Hz is about 1.5 nanoseconds. The length of time required to measure that difference is only limited by the noise and precision of the electronics used to measure it. Ten seconds of such a note will bring the difference up to about 4 microseconds, which is EASY to measure--no tricks required. His theory says it will take 800 seconds. Once again, I say, "Hogwash!" If the measurement can be made in far less time than his theory predicts, then, by definition, the theory is flawed.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle being applicable to piano tuning, does the Stopper Tuning deal with it differently than other tuning methods?

The uncertainty principle prohibits exact knowledge of initial conditions, and repeated performances of such processes will diverge. The consequences of the uncertainty principle are usually only important for extremely small magnitudes.

According to that middle C example requiring requiring 800 seconds, he's aiming for a precision of thousandths of a cent, Is that precision reasonable for piano tuning/music theory, or is it more on the crazy side of things?

*A* measurement or *THE* measurement? It's not the same. Having *A* measurement that is good enough doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

We can make measurements (using very affordable technology) in far less time than those, and they work just great for our applications. You are completely right about that, and I agree, we are not aiming for crazy precision and things work.

Higher resolution is no substitute for longer measurements, however it is very important.

The Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem would be more relevant to resolution.

I've read some of the theory on the Stopper's web site, thanks for the link Jerry.

Does anyone knows how to aurally tune the Onlypure method?

Is it for example: A3-E4-A4? A3= tonic, E4 = fifth, A4 = octave?

Then you have a slow roll on each of the intervals: A3-A4 octave, A3-E4 fifth and E4-A4 fourth. And then if you play the three notes together the beats cancel each other out. Is that so?

Yes, that was undoubtedly what everyone heard. I would not say the octave had a slow roll, it sounded quite pure. Apart from that your underanding is correct. In addition, when large chords were played, the tone was so well blended that the sustained sound was like that of a pipe organ. As I said, I have never heard anything like it.

So does anyone know how to aurally tune the Onlypure tuning? (excuse my poor english, I couldn't find a better way to ask this, I hope you can understand it).

I have some ideas how I would go about it, but have never tried. I am in love with 4:2 octaves in the mid section.

If no one else posts how to tune it aurally, I will share my ideas in a day or two.

Oh, yes it does. The article claims that any such measurement can't be done in that amount of time, but it can--over and over. Your appeals to the sampling theorem also do not dispute my counter example. Counters running at 10 megahertz, 100 megahertz or whatever, can be used to measure the period of middle C. That sample rate greatly exceeds the Nyquist criterion, so the sampling theory agrees that my example method is valid.

Finally, and most importantly, the article used the energy of a photon to purportedly prove a claim about measuring the frequency of musical tones. Using the energy of a photon may well make a valid proof about measuring the frequency of light, but unless someone can explain what the energy of photons has to do with measuring the frequency of sound waves or vibrating strings, then my conclusion is once again that the article is pseudo-science.

The Stopper tuning can be done aurally, in fact Bernhard Stopper was doing that for quite a few years before he developed the ETD.

To tune it aurally, you need to play the fifth above the octave along with the tonic. Unless you have pretty big hands, :^) you need a bar that will reach this intervall and play those keys together.

The formulas in that article are not using the speed of a photon (quote):

"the formula can be transformed into the relation between time and frequency of waves".

Then, it is transformed and even marks:

"...Here, there is no 'h'... The position and momentum of a wave in space have been changed in form to the time and frequency of a wave..."

Plank's constant is out and the connection with the electromagnetic world is gone. The inequations he uses deal only with time and frequency, which can be used for sound. The speed of a photon is not being used there.

I mentioned Nyquist-Shannon because you said "I believe by precision, he means resolution". The Nyquist-Shannon theorem is about sampling (it is relevant to resolution), and it is not being discussed here. Sampling frequency is no substitute to longer measurements according to the article being discussed. That's why I mentioned it, because you are talking about something else, not about uncertainty.

I know counters that run at high frequencies, how they work and what they can do. They work great (as in "good enough" taken to amazingly high standards), and that is not being discussed. That article is not about electronics, but about a physical limitation that can't be overcome.

The point of the article is not that those counters don't exist or don't work. It's point is:

"If you want to get the exact Middle C, you need an infinite time and a continuous wave of C."

If time increases, you can get a closer approximation, with shorter measurements you can't be that approximate. It doesn't matter what you use to make those measurements.

*Exact* is the keyword here. You cannot get exact measurements, period. What you can get is approximations. We can currently have great approximations, "good enough" for A LOT of applications. There are devices that give AMAZING measurements, but that doesn't mean exactness.

We can make a lot of things to try to get as close as possible, but that doesn't mean being exact.

I am not saying we cannot measure a frequency. I'm saying we cannot measure it and be 100% sure we are 100% right. I am saying we can have very good estimations and things work great: my computer works, ETD's work, software based ETD's running in PDA's/phones/laptops and what not work great, but are not exact (they are much more precise than we, humans, can be).

I have no elements to prove that point discussed in the article is wrong, but am not saying it can't be proven wrong. It could indeed be utterly rubbish, but so far I have no elements to prove it is.

To prove it is wrong, you need to show the maths are wrong, or that some physical principle is wrong or incorrectly applied. This kind of thing goes beyond current technology, because the article deals with a physical limitation and you want to use technology that has ITS OWN limitations. You need to overcome the limitations of that technology to attempt to prove the physical limitation discussed in the article.

To prove it wrong by making measurements you need to aim for *exact* repeatable measurements with current technology. Is that possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_uncertainty

He eliminates 'h' by using the energy of a photon, which contains 'h'. In so doing, he ends up an 'h' on both sides of the equal sign, and he is thus able to divide it out. Without using the energy of a photon, the 'h' is NOT eliminated.

That is the whole point of what I've been saying. His derivation relies on sticking in the energy of a photon, and then, with no explanation or justification, claiming that the result is valid for any kind of wave. Unless you or anyone else can give us valid reasons why using the energy of a photon in this context is valid, his thesis is just so much bologna.

Look carefully at his equations and you'll see his slight of hand. I have no interest in discussing this any more. I think I have clearly stated the flagrant problem with the author's derivation. The math doesn't lie. This is not an argument about what precision or exactness means--what's at issue is ONLY the author's mathematical derivation. I'm done.

Besides arguments about the theory behind the tuning, I still am curious about the tuning software. It's hard to get any information. There is virtually no information on his website. When I contacted Mr. Stopper a few weeks ago, he emailed back and just said to read the mailing lists and forum. That was it. Well, the PTG archives have been down. You can find some cached pages. There must have been some high praise on the PTG lists that he is banking on. There are no trial versions of the software available, so you can't try it out.

The basic concept of what he is trying to do has potential. If he says that the program doesn't use memory, I think he just means that it doesn't stored calculated tunings. If the program has one set stretch standard, this simplifies calculations, doesn't it? It wouldn't have to take measurements and do calculations before you start. It could be doing calculations in the background as you tune and it gathers information. It obviously would use some memory to run the program. It must take some sort of reading, and maybe it reads inharmonicity as you tune. But, since there doesn't seem to be a way to get information on this, we are left to guess.

Since no one has posted on how to aurally tune beatless twelfths I will give it a try, even though I have never tuned it. I choose to refer to this tuning as beatless twelfths rather than the “Stopper” or “OnlyPure” method. I am not sure what those are and do not want to give out misinformation on Mr. Stopper’s work.

Since this is based on beatless twelfths, it seems that it should only be used with Equal Temperament. Otherwise, any key color will shift by a fifth for each twelfth of the piano's scale. A full keyboard arpeggio would progress through many tonal colors.

When tuning perfect twelfths there is a stretch added beyond what is required by inharmonicity for beatless 2:1 octaves. The additional stretch is 2 cents per 19 semi-tones, or 0.1 cent per semi-tone. So an octave will have 1.2 cents, a fifth 0.7 cents and a fourth 0.5 cents of additional stretch. The fifths will beat one third slower and the fourths one quarter faster than they would when tuning with beatless 2:1 octaves.

The A3-A4 octave should be wide by one beat in three seconds. When this is established, a check of octave type can be used as a reference to tune other octaves until sufficient notes are tuned to allow beatless twelfths to be tuned. The m6-M3 test for 8:4 octaves may be helpful.

An RBI test for the beatless 3:1 twelfth is the M6-M17 test. Example: F2-D3 beats the same speed as F2-A4

A SBI test for a beatless 3:1 twelfth would be the P5-P8 test. Example: D3-A3 beats the same as A3-A4.

Since the twelfth uses the low partials of 1 and 3, but RBIs use the higher partials from 3 thru 6, a sudden change in RBI beat rates can be expected across the tenor break on smaller pianos.

A tool that spans a twelfth on the keyboard is probably a good idea, especially at the extreme ends of the piano.

I skipped the math, but if someone asks, I will provide it.

RoyP:

I suspect, but do not know, that Stopper’s tuning device tunes to theoretical pitches based on the 19th root of 3 and does not measure inharmonicity.

This could be a melodic model of the human ear and the best compromise between pianos. In other words, this may be the pitches that people want to hear and also may be a great way to tune pianos with different scales so that they sound good together.

It is clear that what you say is correct. But it is not enough to tune the Streched ET of Mr. Stopper.

How do you set the 19 notes in the temperament 12th? A la Braid White? You tune from the A4 note by fifths, expanded fifths, until you reach the 12th to check if it closes the circle of 12ths?

Or can you proced with another scheme a la CM3rds, that is: tune A4 to 440 Hz, then D3 a pure 12th below and from that point subdivide this 12th in smaller intervalls in order to tune the 19 notes that build up your 12th?

The problem here is that 19 is a prime number, it is not divisible, so you can't construct the 12th adding smaller similar intervalls, you can't subdivide the 12th in smaller similar intervalls.

You only can estimate expanded octaves,fiths, fourths, etc. to try to build up your pure 12th. And this estimations may be wrong and uneven, ruining the "expanded ET".

No, I was wondering, hearing Jurgen's words and Stopper's claims about Onlypure tuning, if there was a procedure to tune a circle of "tonic-fith-octave" notes in which you obtain the cancelation of beats. I guess that it is this cancellation of beats that can help to be sure you are on the right way when setting the 19 notes of the temperament 12th.

Hasn't Mr. Stopper published a book or article about the Onlypure method?

I read somewhere that Mr. Stopper's software takes iH into account(I think it was in this very thread).

In order to achieve pure 12ths, the software must tune the third partial of one note to the first partial of the second note, if not the 12th won't be pure. That is: if it tunes the fundamentals based on the 19th root of three then the 12th won't be pure, because the third partial of the low note will not coincide with the fundamental of the high note.

Gadzar:

I think that any method of tuning ET could be used. As the twelfths are tuned, it would be corrected and refined by using the usual chromatic tests.

Unright,

I believe this is a different temperament than meantone, well or ET in that it is not based on octaves but on 12ths, thus the methods used on those temperaments are no more valid. Stopper's tuning asks for different techniques to set up this "cancel of beats" effect in the tonic-fifth-octave. I think it goes beyond the "tuning pure 12ths" concept.

Gadzar:

I respect your prerogative to believe that this is something different.

I think this is only a stretched ET. By ET I mean that there is no difference in key color.

If D3-A3-A4 is an example of the “tonic-fifth-octave” that is being mentioned, then it is the same as the P5-P8 SBI test for a beatless 3:1 twelfth. It does not matter where the middle note is, within reason. The fifth and the octave will have the same beat rate. This may be why I like 4:2 octaves so much. The fourth beats the same as the fifth in the P4-P5 test.

Ok. This is a stretched ET, but the amount of stretching must be exactly established in order to accomplish the cancelling effect. You can have beatless 12ths without it being a 19th root of 3 temperament. It is more than a beatless 12th that is involved in it.

In ET you can have a circle of nice tempered 5ths without it being ET, for ET you must also have an even increasing rate of beats in major thirds, minor thirds, etc.

In Stopper's temperament it is not enough to have your octave stretched and an even run of raising thirds, fourths, etc. You must establish exactly the amount of stretch in all intervalls in order to get the pure 12ths and the cancelling beats effect.

Gadzar:

Thanks for continuing this. I am really enjoying it.

Because of inharmonicity, the 19th root of 3 will not produce beatless twelfths any more than the 12th root of 2 will produce beatless octaves. Only by tuning so that the partials match can an interval be beatless.

Any note can be tuned so that there is a beatless 12th above or below it. The other notes do not matter. And as long as the test note for the P5-P8 test is reasonable there will be equal beating within the “tonic-fifth-octave”. The P5 could even be wide with a narrow P8! To also have progressive beat rates, then the fundamental frequencies must also increase at steady rate, something a little greater than the 19th root of 3 due to inharmonicity.

The above paragraph could be reworded and still be valid when using the 12th root of 2 and any chosen octave type, or even the 7th root of 1.5 and the M6-M10 test for beatless fifths.

That's the point! I am not talking about a beatless interval nor equal beating intervals. I am talking about a beat in an interval that cancels a beat in another interval when sounded together. Furthermore this two beats have not the same rate. For example in A3-E4-A4 the 2:1 octave A3-A4 beats at +0.31 BPS, the 3:2 fifth A3-E4 beats at -0.47 BPS (minus sign for narrow interval, positive numbers for wide)and the fourth E4-A4 beats at +1.88 BPS.

The amazing is that when the three notes are sounded together you hear no beats, they cancell each other. That's unique to this tuning, no other temperament does that.

If you calculate de deviation in cents from ET you'll find that Onlypure tuning has an increasing deviation from 0 cents for A4 to -4.94 cents for A0 and to +4.01 cents for C8. As it is an expanded ET the amount of deviation in cents increases constantly as you get far from A4. In that aspect it is also unique! No other temperament or tuning system has this characteristique. In all octave based temperaments the deviation of a given note remains constant no matter what octave it is in. For example in Bill Bremmer's EBVT the notes C0, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7 and C8 all have the same amount of deviation of +3.8 cents from ET.

So when aurally tuning this temperament you can't simply use the same techniques or tests you use in ET. This temperament behaves differently.

You know I am an ETD oriented tuner. I am not able to program Onlypure tuning in my ETD, because I can not set the 12 figures it asks to set a temperament. In Onlypure system there are no 12 figures, there are 88 figures.

Even if I try to make measured tuning (interval tuning) with my ETD, I can't because I don't know how wide the interval must be and which partials are involved in.

The same thing happens when I try to tune it by ear, I don't know what to listen to! Except for the initial pure 12th D3-A4.

I hope you can understand what I am trying to explain, my bad english poses me strong limitations.

Gadzar:

I think your English is good, better than Jerry’s. How about an English as Second Language Story to lighten things up? On one particular ship I had a helmsman that was from Honduras. (All the Hondurans I’ve met were fine people.) Anyway, his English was adequate. One day a messman came up to the bridge to blab a while with the helmsman, but the helmsman did not say much. Later I asked him why. He said “Mate, I know just little English. (holding his fingers up about an inch apart) I do not want to waste it”

Did you actually hear the intervals that you mention and hear the resulting effect? Or are these beat rates what you calculated and are assuming that they will sound a certain way from what others have described? Also, I thought that we were talking about the P5-P8 intervals not the P5-P4 intervals. We seem to have been discussing different things. Glad you made this clear.

The idea of equal beating intervals “cancelling each other out” always bothered me. I know now that is not what you are talking about, but I thought I would mention it. Since the beats are in phase, they would reinforce each other, not cancel each other out. But since they are equal beating, the sound would be more pure because there would not be the sum and difference of the two beat rates confusing the sound. I suppose it is just semantics.

I don’t know much about ETDs so I can’t say whether my suggestions will work for tuning perfect twelfths. But if one of the “octave types” that can be selected is 3:1, then this should produce beatless twelfths. Or you could tune a beatless twelfth, measure the frequencies, do the math, tune the other notes and then tune beatless twelfths by measuring the third partial (direct comparison). Another possibility is to calculate the frequency for A3 so that the A3-A4 2:1 octave beats +0.31 bps, determine the octave type, enter this octave type into the ETD, and then tune the notes in this octave. Direct comparison can than be used for tuning the twelfths.

Looking at this mathematically I see it as a cut and dried interpolation / extrapolation problem.

The beat rate numbers that you gave brings up a problem. The numbers you give may be for a particular piano scale, or may be theoretical, but they could not possibly be for all piano scales. So, if these beat rates do produce a certain effect, it would not be for all piano scales due to differing iH.

You mention that beatless twelfths are unique: “As it is an expanded ET the amount of deviation in cents increases constantly as you get far from A4.” Any octave tuning scheme that accounts for iH will have this effect. This is shown with the Railsback Curve.

I guess you didn’t find any math errors in my earlier post. I used some “rules of thumb” and did it in my head.

Too bad the archives for the PTG lists have been lost by the new server. Stoppard did reply. He said it is not 19th root of 3. Very close. Fred Sturm from the U of T Austin covered that. I don't know enough of what he said to relay it here.

Thanks Keith. I will continue to refer to beatless twelfths and not "Stopper's" or "OnlyPure".

The beat rates I gave are theoretical values calculed from the 19th root of three.

You are right, this figures can not be used in an actual tuning because of iH.

The problem to tune direct intervals with an ETD is precisely the fact that those beat rates are theoretical. I can not get an accurate tuning if I tune a 2:1 A3-A4 beating at 0.31 BPS, because to take iH into account I must tweak this figure of 0.31 BPS to another value. Doing it aurally or mathematically leads to the same problem: what is the right figure for this particular piano?

In tuning ET the CM3 sequence is a way to tune accurate temperament without knowing the actual size of M3rds, what matters is the ratio on contiguous intervals.

There must be a similar way to tune a 19th root of 3 temperament 12th, in which it is possible to tune the piano to itself regardless of the theoretical or actual figures. Once you have tuned this 12th, you can tune the rest of the piano by tuning pure 12ths.

You can do all kinds of calculations and dispute this or that about uncertainty principles or whatever. But that is all theory and quite meaningless, really. I'm sure you could argue and theorize about the non-efficacy of the superstition surrounding sticking a needle into the hammer felt to improve piano tone. But the whole discussion doesn't mean much.

What matters is what it sounds like in REAL life. It is all about tone. The experience. I have experienced those things, and formulas or calculations or theories to the contrary cannot negate my experiences, which are shared by many, many others, distinguished technicians and players alike.

Gadzar:

I think tuning the A3-A4 as a wide 2:1 octave so that it beats once in every three seconds will be as close to ideal as can be tuned anyway. The iH is already incorporated into this interval. And until all twelve notes (or with beatless twelfths all nineteen notes) are tuned along with a number of octaves, can the progressive beating of all the intervals be tested which is the proof of ET. Any errors should be apparent as the twelfths are tuned and other intervals are checked.

Even with a perfect set of CM3s, there is guess work in getting the fourths and fifths correct. Why would tuning beatless twelfths aurally be any different?

If your ETD can give an accurate reading of the third partial of A440, divide it by 440 and find the 19th root of the result. By applying this to A440 you can calculate the frequencies to tune as long as there are no changes in the rate of change of iH in the scaling.

Jurgen:

Please don't think that I am trying to degrade the value of this tuning, which I admit I have not heard. I am only discussing how beatless twelfths may be tuned, which I also admit may not be the Stopper or the OnlyPure Tuning. No one else has offered to try, so I am.

You're quite right. Quantum mechanics has no place at all in piano tuning.

There's no uncertainty about this. Indeed, there's much certainty ...

The goof who's perpetrating this crap CERTAINLY has no idea what he's talking about.

(My qualifications: BS degree in Physics and Mathematics)

If you were using an optical device to measure the string frequency the photon might come into play. Is it possible this is the connection?

No, because you'd be using an enormous number of photons to measure movement that's huge relative to quantum dimensions.

Quantum mechanics is fascinating and somewhat disturbing. I say disturbing because it describes how tiny particles behave in ways that defy any logic. Yet, the behavior described and predicted by quantum mechanics has been verified and measured to astonishing accuracy so we know that it is a successful theory. According to legend, even Einstein was upset with quantum mechanics, and said, "God doesn't play dice with the universe," or something like that. I don't know if he really said that, but it has been widely reported that he did.

Thanks, Keith:

I was able to get some posts from Fred Sturm on the subject by googleing “site:ptg.org stopper fred sturm” and then clicking on “Cached” for the desired link.

No, it would not be the 19th root of 3, but something a little larger for instruments with iH. And when tuning aurally, it probably won’t be beatless 3:1 12ths, but rather a blend of nearly beatless 3:1, 6:2, 9:3, etc 12ths.

I may try beatless twelfths on the High School’s Baldwin R. They recently bought a 7 ft Boston and I expect the R will need extra stretch to blend well. I know that they will be using them together.

At the convention last year, I attended Bernhard's class and heard the piano tuned the way he does and it sounded remarkably clear. There was even an element of the "pipe organ effect" that I get with the way I tune. I asked the question, "Couldn't the same effect be had by simply tuning ET within a wider than usual octave, such as a 6:3 or perhaps even a bit wider, so that the 12ths outside the initial temperament octave would end up being beatless?"

The answer was "No!" The reason given was that the temperament was not based on equal divisions of the octave in 12 parts but equal divisions of the 12th into 19 parts. I'm sorry but I still don't get it. Wouldn't an initial octave made wide enough end up producing the very same thing? If not, why not? It seems to me that many technicians do that very thing, including very well know technicians such as Jim Coleman, Sr. RPT and Virgil Smith RPT.

There is no question that a wider or narrower octave makes ET sound differently and there can be a certain "magic" when a certain "sweet spot" is found.

He must be using the 12th to determine stretch instead of the octave. Tune the 12th pure and make all the 5ths the same. Then the octave falls where it does. All the ETD has to do is listen for the 3rd partial and calculate the tuning.

Bill & Keith:

This is scary… We seem to be agreeing with each other!

If a particular octave type produces beatless twelfths in the mid section, and beatless twelfths are tuned outwardly from there, I don’t see how there could be a difference.

I think the practical way to aurally tune this is with a wide 2:1 octave that beats once in 3 seconds, set the temperament in whatever manner is customary, and when the beatless twelfths are tuned, make adjustments as needed to even out the progression of M6s and M10s (never just one or the other.)

I have been experimenting with Tunelab so see if I can get something similar. There are 3:1 partial choices in both the bass and treble. So, take inharmonicity measurements, and go to the graphical tuning editor. Set both the bass and treble to 3:1, and use the auto adjust feature. This will get it close. Then, go to manual adjustment. My goal was to get the "octave style" adjustment as close to the center line as possible. I have been able to do so for most of the piano(below C6). The upper treble needs to be stretched sharp to make this work.

This should produce a pure 12th's tuning for most of the piano. I think that the upper octaves sound better stretched more anyways, so this works. On the pianos I have tried this, the bass has less stretch than I would normally do.

My impression is that even though the octaves are stretched, it makes the piano sound less noisy. I usually think of stretched tunings as sounding "livelier", but this does seem to hit a "sweet spot". It's interesting.

One of the things I really like about Tunelab is that it is flexible enough to try these sorts of things.

RoyP:

Not sure what you mean by: “The upper treble needs to be stretched sharp to make this work.”

Do you mean that the features you are using will not result in 3:1 12ths above C6?

Right. In order to get the rest of the tuning to be pure 12ths, you have to adjust the upper part of the curve sharp of 3:1. I did aurally confirm what it was doing as I went. I worked.

I tuned a Steinway S this way on Friday, and had the customer call back to say how great it sounded, and that they wanted to be sure to get on my schedule for the next appointment. How's that for positive re-enforcement?

I think Stoppard said there was a "comma" or a slight tweak from the pure. Could be the voodoo physics he uses.

Hi Keith:
I'm sure I'm not doing exactly the same thing. It's fun to try, and is just something I'm experimenting with to relieve boredom.

One man's superstition is another man's religion.

I am sure that Bernhard is smiling at all the speculation about what only he really knows how to do. It seems a lot to me like what I do with the EBVT. No matter how much I try to describe it, very few if anyone really gets it. The correction figures only get you in the ballpark but not to the home run.

Bill:

I am confused. You previously said:

“I'm sorry but I still don't get it. Wouldn't an initial octave made wide enough end up producing the very same thing? If not, why not? It seems to me that many technicians do that very thing, including very well know technicians such as Jim Coleman, Sr. RPT and Virgil Smith RPT.”

Now you say:

“I am sure that Bernhard is smiling at all the speculation about what only he really knows how to do.”

I don’t know if you think the Stopper tuning is really different, or just gets to the same place as others but in a different way.

I have contacted Bernhard Stopper. I asked if he could point me to a web page that would explain it all in terms that a technically-savvy tuner could understand, without going into quantum physics. He says that he is working on a publication to explain it all. He didn't say any more than that. I am hoping that it will be geared towards tuners.
Thank you,

I've contacted him also. He said me to buy his software and verify how wonderfull it is.

I spent some time reading the cached pianotech archives.

There were posts from Mr. Stopper mentioning how the temperament is set by listening to the 12th along with other notes that are a 5th from one of the notes that make up the 12th. There are certain ratios that these notes are tuned to. I am guessing that this is the process of using “SuperSymmetry”. I am also guessing that for different scalings, that the 12th may not be a beatless 3:1 or 6:2 or whatever, but a compromise in order for these tuning ratios to work out as good as possible.

This seems very plausible to me, being a fourths and fifths tuner. I have never been completely satisfied with the idea of picking an octave width or type and going on from there, even though that is what I do. Wouldn’t there be a best octave width or type for a particular piano? Why not pick one so that the fourths, fifths, octaves and twelfths sound best? This may be what Stopper is doing. Whether tempering this way is also best to the extreme ends of the piano is another matter.

Yes! ! !

I've been wondering how to interject this into the discussion. Not only a "best" octave width, but a "best" 12th. I'm only guessing, because I haven't had a chance to hear or analyze a Stopper tuned piano...

During the work I did years ago on alternate temperaments, there was a group of us communicating and creating, tweaking, spreadsheeting and learning. The graphs that most of us have seen focus on the widths in cents of the major thirds and other intervals. While helpful, these graphs just weren't showing what I was hearing. We went back to predicting beat rates... still wasn't what I was hearing. Not until we got to the point of realizing that in a chord there is a major third and a minor third stacked - and that the ratio between the beats in these two intervals might have more to do with the feeling of a tuning than the width of the octave.

We found that in equal temperament the ratio (m3/M3) is the only thing that stays constant. Robert Wendall (who has WAY more math ability than I) was able to construct a fairly strong temperament that had equal ratios. The people that played it thought it too bland or equal...

Which brings us to the subject at hand - I believe that while listening for the octave/doubles/triples/12ths... the individual partial matches (2:1/4:2/6:3..) aren't nearly as important as we may believe. It is the blend of all, and how the beat rates interact for the "syncronous" effect.

There's always been a bit of "voodoo" around Stopper's ideas - probably because he is trying to keep parts secret so that he can market it... I've only heard one report about someone that has used the software, and I haven't seen any evidence that it repeats what he does aurally. Until there is more solid information, we're all just guessing.

Ron Koval

Ron:

Thanks so much for joining in.

“We found that in equal temperament the ratio (m3/M3) is the only thing that stays constant.” I think this would be because the test for a 6:4 fifth is the m3-M3 test. I have been pooh-poohed here for using this as a test to set my fifths, and the M3-M6 test to set my fourths. On challenging pianos this results in a more even color across the break even though the M3s jump in beat rate.

This settles it. I’m going to make a 12th spanner and see what happens.

Jeff, Ron said it better than I could have. Thanks, Ron. I explained to Gadzar in a private post that in usual ET, each octave size is actually different, not all exactly the same in any one part of the piano, even the temperament octave. Different, yes but very close to each other. I gave the example of a set of hammers or a loaf of Italian bread, take your pick.

Each hammer (or slice of bread) is a slightly different size. If you switched any two of them, you could tell the difference but if you went up or down several pieces and switched them, you could. Certainly, if you took one from the end and switched it from one in the middle, there would be a large difference.

So, when tuning ET aurally, the best way to get the temperament "equal" is to insure that the F3-F4 and A3-A4 octaves are *within* 0.5 cents of each other. (Sometimes, making them numerically exactly the same doesn't quite work but anything more than 0.5 cents doesn't work either).

When I tune the EBVT, I have some 5ths that are pure, some barely tempered and some tempered more than in ET. This causes me to tune a variety of differently sized octaves outside the temperament and up and down the piano. When I get to the point where I have a double octave, I compare it with the octave and 5th (12th) and make the two equal beating. However, in normal practice, I start favoring the 12th after about a half octave (going up) and then tune pure 12ths but at the very top, I expand both intervals.

So, I can well imagine that while Bernhard calls the idea pure 12ths, what he really does is tune the 12th pure in part of the piano, maybe a good part of it but at some point he goes beyond that. Perhaps in the middle on some pianos, those 12ths are somewhat but just very slightly contracted.

I talked to him personally about it but left with more questions than were answered. Steinway tuners in NYC for example are well known for stretching the temperament octave enough so that the 12ths are pure. "It is not the same thing" was the answer.

Bill:

Again the question arises: Is what Stopper is doing different in approach or different in result? If more than two notes are listened to when tuning, as he says they are when tuning aurally, then I would say both.

Not sure what Ron said better than you could have. Was it the word “Yes! ! !” ? ? ?

Here's my guess at what's different.

1. I don't remember how he sets the octave+5th temperament - do you remember reading about that? I've played with Tunelab enough to know it's pretty easy to set up a curve for one partial to end up with that width. The question then becomes which partial??? (It's a whole 'nuther discussion to notice the differences between smooth-curve tunings of different partials on the same piano.)

2. Once the "temperament" section is set, it should be pretty easy to expand the tuning outwards using the 12th spanner. The idea sounds similar to tuning a unison... You've got two tuned notes - the octave - add the untuned 12th, listening to all three together. Go slightly above, and slightly below to listen for the "best", or "least bad" spot and call it done.

While I find it hard to believe that the beats cancel out, I don't have any problem with the idea that there is a "best" spot that our ears find to place the 12th.

I seem to remember that part of Stoppers first writings had something about:

When tuning the octave and octave+fifth the goal is to find the placement where the sum of the beats of all matching partials is minimized.

So if I remeber correctly, he wasn't concerned with any particular partial match, rather ALL of the possible (audible) partial matches - and how they sound together.

Ron Koval

Ron:

Here is A Link to a Cached Pianotech Archive.

These paragraphs lead me to believe that three notes are played together and the best blend, perhaps without the 12th being pure (note the tildas ~) is the goal:

Bernhard Stopper has recently discovered, that only in this tuning solution,
all beat ratios of octaves and fifths are symmetric to the interval ratios,
that means they have also ratios of 1/1, 3/1, ~2/1 and ~3/2 and multiples
of
them like the interval ratios.

Beside the mathematical mysteries, this fact is responsible for the
phenomene, that in every three-note interval combination consisting of an
octave and a fifth, the beats are phased out to a pure state in the
stopper-tuning (there are six such three-note combinations in a perfect
twelfth who have all a pure state in the Stopper Tuning).

This is correct.

The "sweet spot" can be achieved when the duodecime tuning tool (as shown on a photograph on my homepage) is used, to tune the duodecime aurally pure. (I prefer the term duodecimo because many technicians still think a twelfth is an octave)

Here is the link to the duodecime tuning tool photograph:
http://www.piano-stopper.de/html/stopper-stimmung.html

This approach is slightly different from listening the 3rd partial of the lower note together with the first partial of the upper note, (what is probably in use by some tuners, like NY Steinway tuners, as Bill mentioned).

To listen to the 3/1 partials is like tuning a 2/1 octave. By using the duodecime tuning tool, one gets the "sweet spot" duodecime, which is slightly beyound the 3/1 duodecime.

As i published the method with the duodecimo tuning tool in euro-piano twenty years ago, it woud also not be surprinsing, if there are some tuners around using the duodecime tuning tool method already.

The goal is to keep the symmetry present in this temperament also under presence of nonlinearity, to produce the special acoustic effects. There is no voodo or quantum mechanic calculations in my software, (which deals the nonlinearity in the background). There is only heavy math. Although the discovered inherent symmetry sometimes appears to me like voodo, in fact it´s just beauty.

My statements about the uncertainity principle were contributed to the problem of real time frequency measurement in extreme accuracy. There is a limit of precision, the shorter the time interval is. We (as tuning professionals) do not have the time to measure about a second or two to evaluate the frequency to get it accurate enough, then turn the lever and measure again, that´s all about that.

As there are always experts around who do not hesitate to throw around with their titles, i want to provide another link about the matter from a scientific source, what simply figures out what uncertainity principle is (a principle, nothing else):

http://www.math.ntnu.no/~yura/Projects/uncert_project.pdf

I rarely jump into forum discussions, I apoligize for that.

Bernhard Stopper

Mr. Stopper:

Thank you for joining in.

When I started contributing to this topic, I was very careful to talk about beatless 12ths as separate thing from your tuning because I was not sure that they were the same thing. It appears that I was right; they are not the same thing.

I understand what you mean by a “sweet spot” and it should be easier to tune a twelfth this way than an octave because of the fewer coincident partials. But what about the other notes that must be tuned to form the temperament? From the Pianotech archive, I understand that octaves and fifths within the 12th are listened to, made beatless as possible, and the temperament proceeds around the circle of fifths. I imagine that on some pianos the twelfth’s “sweet spot” might need to be compromised for the other intervals to sound more pure.

I plan on making a twelfth “spanner” and giving this a try. I use the Braid White sequence and am very comfortable with it. Do you have any tips on setting the temperament with your method?

FWIW:

I made the tool and tuned my CW Console to beatless 12ths, but did not care for the sound. I did learn some things that will be useful, though. I’ll give details if anyone is interested.

Hey Jeff - onward to experimentation!

Now take a step back - you tried what the Stopper tuning is NOT... We know for sure that he's been very clear that his tuning is not a beatless 12ths tuning - because he's said as much many times.

A little detective work:
(from the cache you linked)

"For inharmonicity related
instruments, pure means the state, where the sum of the beats is minimal."

"that in every three-note interval combination consisting of an
octave and a fifth, the beats are phased out to a pure state"

"pure 3-note
combinations of octaves an fifths, and there are four different combinations
of them, (an octave and a outer upper fifth, an octave and a outer lower
fifth, an octave and a inner upper fifth, and an octave and a inner lower
fifth)"

"It is not possible to reach this precision with the usual electronic tuning
devices or the usual two-note aural bearing plan techniques"


So where does that leave us? Usually confused...

Most of us in North America, with the aural tradition strongly influenced by the machines and the reliance on coincedent partials get caught up in the goal of beatless intervals. This detour of the tuning world has led to a much higher level of precision than was possible before, yet may lesson the accuracy of the goal of a musical result...

If I read/interpret the above properly, it seems to say that every octave-fifth (inside and outside) is tuned so that the sum of all of the sounding beats is minimized. Nothing there indicates that the goal is beatless 3:1 or 6:2 octaves...

That would mean that after setting A4, A3 and D3 are manipulated to find the minimal beating loctation when all three notes are played together. Then that D3-A4 temperament is divided into the 19 steps. After that, every note to be tuned is moved as part of an octave-fifth triad, as opposed to a two-note interval as we are used to using.

Make any sense?

Ron Koval
(tuning sleuth)

Ron:

The example of A4, A3, D3 is perfect. What will result from tuning these so that they are as beatless as possible? A beatless 3:1 12th, a beatless 2:1 octave, and a beatless 3:2 fifth. Easy, but try to make an equal temperament out of it!

I understand that Mr. Stopper tunes the twelfth to be a compromise between 3:1 and 6:2. This is very, very close to being beatless 12ths unless this is not what Mr. Stopper actually does. I could hear enough difference between the 3:1 and 6:2 to make a compromise in the lower bass, but nowhere else. Elsewhere, tuning the 12ths was much like tuning a unison; there was only one place that was correct. It was very different than tuning an octave where there is a window that the octave can be in, and seem to be beatless.

Analyzing the 12th is interesting. If you take the two end notes and tune octaves within the 12th in order to have intervals for ET, this forms a P5 a P4 and another P5. The upper two intervals are a P4-P5 test for a 4:2 octave and the P4 must beat faster than the P5 for beatless 12ths. The bottom P5 must beat slower than the upper P5. The upper octave will beat the same speed as the lower P5 as this is the test for a 3:1 12th. And the upper octave will beat faster than the lower octave. The challenge is getting the P4 to the correct beat rate to create an ET.

"That would mean that after setting A4, A3 and D3 are manipulated to find the minimal beating location when all three notes are played together."

Ah ha! The "sweet spot"! When all of the slowly beating intervals, octaves, 4ths, 5ths *and* all of their multiples tend to cancel out each other's beating, you find a remarkable clarity across the whole piano.

When I do this withe the EBVT and play that long C Major arpeggio, the CE M3 is only half the speed that it is in ET and its M3 and M6 are also equal beating and thus cancel each other out. The arpeggio played and held has everything tempered but all you hear is a very slow wave that seems to pass up and down the whole piano. The strings from the lower and middle parts of the piano's higher partials match the fundamentals of the notes in the 7th octave and thus reinforce them and keep them ringing in sympathy. They sound like the tiny pipes that do not decay but keep playing constantly as the organist slowly lets up on the volume pedal until the whole chord fades out. It works on the the finest grand on down to Whitney spinets.

Bernhard's tuning, as I heard it at the convention in Anaheim, had much of that same effect except, of course that the C Major chord did not have the same M3-M6 tempering as the EVBT has. Yet, the manipulation of the octaves, 4ths and 5ths had much of the same canceling out effect.

In my view, he looks far beyond the narrow focus that most tuners have of tuning one interval at a time and trying to make each interval be the best it can be while ignoring what happens with the whole rest of the piano with respect to inharmonicity. This is where Brade-White and all of the other early tuning books fail us today. Even the PTG "Master Tuning" for the exam fails to do that (in a rather big way).

That is why I have always looked at that that theoretical way of tuning as just that, theoretical, not for public consumption and I never tune that way for any customer for any reason. There is always something better than that even though I acknowledge that most technicians believe it to be the end all, the "holy grail" of tuning.

Never be completely satisfied that what you have learned or been taught is the one and only correct way to do anything with the piano, tuning, regulation, hammer or part choice, you name it. Study all of the sources available to you and form your own set of experiences and conclusions. I know that is what Bernhard has done. I am SO looking forward to meeting him again and having a fine dinner with him in Grand Rapids. I am working on a way to have a piano tuned in the EBVT at the convention and will let everyone know when and where to find it when those plans are in place. Bernhard will likely do the same.

Ron, I think you are 100% right about Stopper's temperament. It consists of tuning three notes chords and not two notes intervalls.

Once you have the first 3 notes D3-A3-A4, or what ever they are, the point is to subdivide the 12th into 19 equal steps by tuning three notes chords. How? I don't know.

(Maybe we'll need a third hand with a second tuning hammer in order to tune two notes at the same time. . Plus, of course, the tool made by Unright to play the 12th intervall and the third note with the other hand.)

Unright:

I think you don't get the entire picture, you strive to tune beatless or whatever intervalls between a pair of notes. You talk about 3:1, 6:2 12ths, compromises between different coincident partials, 4:2 octaves, upper octaves beating faster than lower octaves, etc.

All that stuff is what all of us were, and are still, doing for decades.

I think Mr. Stopper goes a step forward. Listen to Stopper's words:

"It is not possible to reach this precision with the usual electronic tuning devices or the usual two-note aural bearing plan techniques"[/b]

underline:

"It is not possible to reach this ... ...with the usual... ...two-note aural bearing plan"[/b]

So it is not only a matter of tuning a given kind of intervall...

If anyone wants to really understand what I am saying, try it for yourselves. Make a spanner. I used 1/2 inch dowels 10-3/8 inches apart glued into a piece of wood with some action cloth glued to the ends of the dowels. Then tune A3 and D3 to A4 until the sound is as beatless as possible. I expect you will have the same results as I did. The three notes played together will form just intervals with each other. What could be more beatless than that? Now try to make an ET from these 3 just intervals.

O.K. Unright, I'll try it. I guess the sequence is something like that:

Tune
A4 to fork as usual
D3 to A4 around pure, only an approximation
A3 to [D3/A4] adjust D3 to get to the sweet point

from here, all the notes are tuned as 3 notes chords striving for the sweet point.

D4 to [D3/A4]
G3 to [D3/D4]
G4 to [G3/D4]
C3 to [G3/G4]
C4 to [C3/G4]
F3 to [C3/C4]
F4 to [F3/C4]
A#3 to [F3/F4]
A#4 to [A#3/F4]
D#3 to [A#3/A#4]
D#4 to [D#3/A#4]
G#3 to [D#3/D#4]
G#4 to [G#3/D#4]
C#3 to [G#3/G#4]
C#4 to [C#3/G#4]
F#3 to [C#3/C#4]
F#4 to [F#3/C#4]
B3 to [F#3/F#4]
E4 to [A3/A4]
E3 to [A3/E4]

The rest of the piano can be tuned by 12ths with an embedded octave.

What tests to use?

I never understood why a spanner would be necessary when the Sostenuto pedal is already there for just such a purpose. If there is none or it doesn't work which may very often be the case, the damper pedal may also be used in the same way the Sostenuto pedal is used. That is; play the notes first, then press the pedal. There will, of course, be a little extraeneous noise but the beats you want to hear will still clearly be heard.

Yes Bill, but then you have to use both hands to play the notes.

With the use of a spanner you can leave one hand on the tuning hammer while playing the notes with the other hand. It's easyer to tune that way.

Thanks Jim for the clip from the archives.

This:
3. F21 to D30 (sixth) with the same beatrate.This will result the 3. harmonic of this D30 to the same pitch as the A49 =440 Hz, the 12th is set now.

Seems to suggest that in 2004, Stopper WAS just setting a beatless 3:1 - as opposed to the onlypure definition of sum of the beats of 3 notes minimized...

Again, my perception is that the result is not that far from what a lot of us do with other methods. It IS however, often that last, tiny little bit that makes the difference between something good and something special. From Virgil Smith's "resonance" to Bill Bremmer's "pipe organ" to Bernard Stopper's "just beauty" - I think it is finding a way to make the whole piano work together the best way possible.

Ron Koval

Gadzar, I have tuned double octaves and octave + 5ths for nearly 30 years using the Sostenuto pedal. I also tune double octaves + 5ths that way too in the high treble and low bass. I couldn't imagine using such a clumsy device nor would it fit in my tool bag!

Ron, your perception is correct!

Ron and Bill:

The article Jim quoted here, dates back to january 2004 and is prior art of the OnlyPure method, which i introduced in mid 2004.

The aural OnlyPure method is a refinement (developped in 2004 after the discovery of the symmetry phenomene) of my initial work. In my initial publication of 1988 and my daily tuning work i described and used the duodecime spanner to set the temperament duodecime.

With the 3/1 partial matching technique i described in the pianotech article i contributed a less strange solution that does not require such a "clumsy" tool for pro-level techinicians.

It seemed to be a vaild approach to me at this time. (And it is still valid of course, as all other temperaments and solutions are valid also. But we are discussing refinements for a special possible acoustic effects duo to the symmetry here)

I had enough experiences from colleagues here in germany, laughing about the spanner tool. The refuse of Bill to use it tells clearly that the situation did not change principly.

Today i prefer to use my software to tune, as the aural OnlyPure methods still requires 2,5 hours of hard work, whereas i come to the same results in much less time (about 1,5 hours tuning the instruments 2 times for stability). And the aural OnlyPure method is LOUD due to the three notes used.

Best regards,

Bernhard Stopper

Yes, I thought the date on the post may mean something...

Thanks for responding, I still look forward to having a chance to play one of your tunings. You answered another question for me by indicating that you use the software to get the same results - that it just wasn't an aural speciality of yours - glad to hear that.

Ron Koval

Thank you also from me, Bernhard, for your response. Just as with me, my technique and understanding constantly evolves from year to year. I do not outright reject the use of the tool which is described but for me, personally, it would not be of much use. I apologize for calling it "clumsy". It would only be that for me.

I tune other intervals wider than the hand could possibly reach: double octaves, 12ths, double octaves + 5ths and triple octaves. I alternate between them. To me, it is not a problem to play the two notes being tuned, hold them with the Sostenuto pedal and then adjust the desired string while it sounds. If it needs to be struck again, I keep my foot on the pedal. If I want to listen to another interval, I quickly change to that. For my purposes, I simply do not need the tool but for those who find it useful, it does not deserve ridicule.

All:

I was busy yesterday with a relative's furnace. Much of the problem was "new wine in old bottles". Keith will know what I mean.

Gadzar:

I worked the other way around the circle of fifths and used the BW checks.... But after two hours I gave up on setting the temperament this way. I think much of the problem was tuning across the break. So I finally decided to just set an octave a bit wide, tune my temperament and then polish as I tuned the beatless 12ths. I noticed that tuning them with the spanner sets a very exact interval and that other tests will show the slightest departure from ET. This should work the other way also. I can check the beat rate of ordinary 12ths as octaves are tuned in my customary way to check my ET.

Jim:

Thanks so much for the archive. It was relieving to see confirmation of my earlier suggestions for tuning a P12th temperament.

Bernard:

I am so glad that you cleared up the confusion I had. Now I know that many of your posts in the pianotech archives were about tuning P12ths and that the OnlyPure method is something similar, but different. I look forward to the publication of the explanation you have planned for this year.

Ron:

I can’t agree more about “finding a way to make the whole piano work together the best way possible.” The P12 tuning did not seem to do this.

And I thank you, B Stoppard. I started this thread as a pure technical learning experience. I wasn't trying to promote or steal. There has been some very valuable posts on the realities of piano tuning here. I am very happy you decided to contribute.

Stoppard? Isn't it Stopper?

Hello and asorry for the late intromission.

According to Mr. Roberts (and as the Stopper's webpage also claims) PureOnly software does not need stretch measurements or presampling notes. You can just set the pitch and start tuning notes in any order. My question is: how a software, or any procedure, can deal with inharmonicity, intervals (three note chords!), canceling beats etc. if there is no presampling and if the tuning sequence does not matter?
I think I am missing something.

Thanks and regards,
Jorge

Thanks for everyone's responses. It's been fun.

I still have questions about the software. There are certain things about it that make alot of sense, as I said earlier.

Is it measuring multiple partials? In other words, is it more similar to Verituner or Cybertuner/Tunelab in this respect?

It works on an iPhone? My understanding from Robert Scott was that the sampling rate on an iPhone isn't fast enough to run his tuning software. Am I recalling this correctly? That's why he has Tunelab for Smartphones, but not the iPhone. What about the OnlyPure software is different? I don't have an iPhone, and would be running an iPaq. So, for me the point is mute, but I wonder about this. My daughter has an iPod Touch, and it's an impressive little machine. If OnlyPure in fact works well on one of these, it would be really tempting to get one.

What about pitch raise capability? Can it do overpull?

Is there a way to adjust the sensitivity of the display? Overall, I'm wondering how flexible of a tool this is. So far, it sounds to me like software that I might want to have for the occasional piano, but not for everyday use. I mean, when you run across that Kimball console that hasn't been tuned in 20 years, you're probably still going to want to use Tunelab, or Cybertuner, with their overpull feature. Not all, or even most, tuning situations involve conditions which are ideal. So often, we are making pianos sound less bad, not creating a work of tuning art. It's just the reality of real world piano tuning. We do our best with what we have to work with. But most pianos don't get tuned enough, let alone all the other work they need. So, unless this software can do more than is now apparent too me, it seems like more of a specialized application.

I will be visiting someone in a few weeks who has the OnlyPure software. So, I look forward to trying it out for myself.

Sorry my mistake. I was trying to get the first name right and messed up the last.

I have no idea how it works. I'm not into heavy math. I would think that it bases where it places the note on the partial structure of that wire.

I did not see anything on the website saying you can start tuning with any note. It does say that you select the base pitch and start tuning without measuring individual notes; it does the calculations in the background. If you start with A4 and tune chromatically, it could measure the iH as you go.

Yes. It was Mr. Roberts who explained in the first mail of the topic that "order of notes tuned made absolute no difference". I have supposed that he has tried the software.

Regards,

It has no memory (storage). Why would it matter what note you play next? It doesn't retain the info from the previous note.

I think if you go to the CAUT Achives of Kent Swaffords post the I got the MP3 files from, you will find that is what is said. Use the link to Stoppers explanation to get to the CAUT archives.

No pitch raise, either.

The interesting thing to me, was when it was used to tuned two mis-matched pianos together for a recital. The results lead me to believe that there isn't any measuring of the piano inharmonicity going on. I even have a vague memory reading that the onlypure math matching trumps the inharmonicity differences of each piano.(?)

Ron Koval

Yes, that was what Apple Support told me. However I have heard from several other developers, especially Faber Acoustical, who say they are sure the new 3G iPhones do support the higher sample rates. I am anxious to try this out for myself, but I won't be able to run code on a iPhone until Apple gets around to issuing me a developer's certificate, which can take months.

Keith:

Maybe you could provide us with a link to support what you are saying.

Here's a hodge-podge of links... I wish the
archives were working!

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:Vrj...clnk&cd=5&gl=us

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:7Ni... lnk&cd=5&gl=us

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:b7B...clnk&cd=1&gl=us

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:awL...clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Ron Koval

Ron:

Thanks for the links. I remember reading these posts before. I do not remember any posts from Mr. Stopper saying that the notes can be tuned in any order, but apparently it is included in the instruction for the tuning device. Until more is known, I am going to stand by a previous post of mine: