Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Temperament Octave

I am curious to know the manner in which tchnicians in the group tune the temperament octave. I use a C temperament I learned in school in 1983. Using a C-523.3 fork, I set C40 to the fork. Then tune the octave C28 to C40. From there I tune thirds and fifths, obtaining successively faster beating thirds through the octave. Tests I use are fifths, fourths and sixths. It took me a few years to come anywhere near mastering this temperament, because of the difficulty in correctly judging and setting beat speeds that are much greater than the slight beat or "roll" of fourths and fifths. I have tried F and A temperaments, but seem to always come back to this one because I get better results. I guess a tuner stays with what he/she initially learns. I would appreciate insight into how you do it.

Regards,
Ron

I use the f - f octave from a c fork for general temperments. For fine concert tunings I use at least an octave and a half to ensure my beat speeds are accurate.

Bob, do you use fourths and fifths as your basic tuning intervals and test thirds, sixths, etc. Interesting that you use an octave and a half for concert tuning. Upon reflecting, I tune/test most of the octave above C40, or until it begins to become too hard to compare beat speed. I then rely on beatless octaves. Thanks...Ron

I set my temperament form f3 to a4 I set a series of contigious 3rds f3-a3-c#4-f4 thst isd my skeleton. I then tune in 4th & 5ths through the cycle from a to a but i check all my 4ths and 5ths with 3rds and 6ths. but mostly i use either my SAT or my new RCT for pocket PC

I originally learned C-C and did that for several years. Then I learned F-F and never looked back. I would advise anyone to use F-F because there are still too many small pianos that have bad stringing scale breaks in the middle of a C-C octave, screwing up the beat rates.

Several years ago I tried a Sanderson Accu-Fork (not Accu-Tuner) and now I like that best of all, especially for judging how much to overshoot in a pitch raise. It's still an F-F aural tuning, but Sanderson recommends a certain way to do the temperament using his tool, which I learned and consider it a better way to set an F-F temperament.

Regards,

Rick Clark

Yours is a very good question. I had the very same thoughts and ideas back in the late 1970's. I had learned to tune with a C Fork but did use the F3-F4 octave after tuning the octave down from C5 to C4 to what I thought was a "pure" octave. After C4, tuned down a 5th to F3, From C4 again, down a 4th to G3, up a 5th to D4, down a 4th to A3, up a 5th to E4, down a 4th to B3, down a 4th to F#3, up a 5th to C#4, down a 4th to G#3, up a 5th to D#4, down a 4th to A#(Bb)3, up a 5th to F4. The 5ths were to be narrowed by 3 beats in 5 seconds and the 4ths widened by 1 beat per second.

When I got to F4, I was supposed to test the octave, F3-F4. If it was not "pure", then I was to back my way through the temperament sequence until things evened out. I was supposed to be able to hear "very rapid beats" in the 3rds but beyond that, no further refinement. The octaves were supposed to be "pure" except that beginning on C6, give or take a few notes, they were supposed to be "stretched" by 2 beats per second. The bass octaves were supposed to be "pure" all the way down.

Many, many people have been taught that this is the way to tune with no further information. Some could produce beautiful, concert quality tunings. But the majority would produce inconsistent results, sometimes good, sometimes not so good but never understanding why. I tuned for a good 10 years this way and pleased my customers, even tuned professionally as a musician on the road.

When I decided I wanted to be a Professional Piano Technician, I joined PTG as I would recommend to anyone who is interested in this kind of work. In 1979, I attended the PTG Annual Convention which was in Minneapolis that year. There, I saw the famous team of Jim Coleman RPT and the late George Defebaugh RPT (both were since awarded PTG's highest honor, the Golden Hammer) as they demonstrated many tuning techniques and ideas which were new to me.

The most important were Jim Coleman's hammer technique and his way of rough (or coarse) tuning in whole steps and George Defebaugh's ability to control the Rapidly Beating Intervals (RBI) (3rds, 6ths, 10ths, 17ths, etc.). They were as difficult for me to perceive back then as I sense they are for some of the people I work with now and have these kinds of questions. I certainly didn't understand everything but it gave me a start on a new way of thinking.

I went back to as many seminars and conventions as I could manage to learn more and more about tuning. This was right at the time the PTG Standardized Tuning Exam was being developed and implemented. Also, a Quantum leap was being taken in the ability of Electronic Tuning Devices (ETD) to truly effect a good sounding piano tuning.

Lots of information came pouring out of PTG that would finally make a difference to the average tuner and raise his/her ability to really tune a piano better than had been common practice in the earlier part of the 20th Century. The single most important diagnostic tool in aural tuning ironically came from the inventor of the first really good ETD, Dr. Al Sanderson, inventor of the Sanderson Accu-Tuner (SAT).

He identified what both theorists and practitioners confirmed as the 4:5 Ratio of Contiguous 3rds. This knowledge allowed aural tuners to very finely and precisely adjust the Major 3rds, particularly within the Midrange area that any part of may be considered, "The Temperament Octave".

Other work with RBI's allowed aural tuners to understand and manipulate the octaves. Rick Baldassin, Jim Coleman, Dr. Sanderson, Steve Fairchild, Fred Tremperer, Virgil Smith (all RPT) and others contributed new knowledge about how to tune octaves.

Still beyond that, Owen Jorgensen RPT reintroduced the idea that Equal Temperament (ET) had never really been practiced on earlier keyboard instruments including the precursors to the modern piano. He was able to interest a few people at first (including me) and more and more later with the idea that the temperament could also be manipulated.

But clearly, one would have to be well studied and well practiced to be able to make any of these late 20th Century refinements entirely by ear. So, it comes to a point where a decision must be made about whether the comfort of knowing and practicing what was first learned is good enough. One of the things I can readily identify is that the F3-F4 octave is the best range for creating the initial temperament, regardless of the kind of piano and regardless of the kind of temperament. I would also assert that an A-440 pitch source is the only valid one.

Bill, thanks so much for your post. I have read it once and plan to read it as many times as I need to absorb all your comments. They make so much sense and in many ways I see myself in your experiences. I have been tuning for 19 years this year, and am always looking for better ways of tuning. This is the reason for the post. I like, my current temperament, but am open to new ideas. Your comments inspire me in several ways:

When I was in school, my class attended the PTG Convention in Indianapolis. It was a wonderful experience and I took advantage of every class/seminar I could attend. But I was completely overwhelmed by some of the attitudes/egos of some of the technicians I met. So much so that I became more than a little disgruntled with the idea of joining the Guild.
The loss caused by this attitude is my loss, for I have recently come to believe that it is best to focus on the positives, and ignore any negatives of PTG membership. I have contacted my local chapter and the membership forms are on the way I am told. So with that I plan to join and take the exams as soon as I am able.

Thanks again, and I am anxious to try some new things.

Regards,
Ron