Paradox & audio illusions

Don't know if any of you are familiar with Diana Deutschs' work from University of California Psychology dept. but I thought I would share these two links. The first link has to do with various illusions and tritone parodox for pitches.

http://philomel.com/musical_illusions/

This second link is associated with some of her other work in regards to speech and music/pitch association. A lot of this is quite baffling and will alter your take on what we hear with music and how and why many of us are not hearing the same thing.

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=101

Here's another audio demonstration that I think is pertinent to piano tuning. It's not a paradox or illusion, but rather points out whether one is an analytic or synthetic listener.

http://www.feilding.net/sfuad/musi3012-01/demos/audio/425_analytic_synthetic_pitch.htm

A few of my hypotheses about this demo:
1) I suspect one can't both listen analytically and synthetically at the same time.

2) I suspect that it is possible to switch from analytic listening to synthetic listening. I myself can hear both of the intended intervals, but I invariably start in analytic listening mode, and have to force myself to switch to synthetic. I can't hear both intended results at the same time.

3) From what I've read of Virgil Smith and his descriptions of "whole tone" tuning, and from the description in the web page of synthetic listeners, I'm guessing that he may have been a synthetic listener.

4) This could also explain why there was such divergent opinions when a particular tuner tried to explain in writing what they hear while tuning. (Ex. the exchange in the latest PTJournals between Virgil and Dan Levitan, if I remember correctly.) One was a synthetic listener and tuned according to what he heard. The other was an analytical listener and tuned accordingly. The two would never agree on what they were hearing - they couldn't.

Just a few conjectures....

Happy listening,
Chris S.

When I try to show others that don't seem to hear what I hear do I become aware of these phenomena.

For example, I hear the interaction in RBI's more in the 'body' of the sound the beating sounds more robust, obvious, if you like, than the flimsy beating that occurs between the partials involved when I demonstrate it by ghosting to isolate the harmonics.

The whining partial that I eliminate when I tune unisons. (I don't think I even hear the fundamental when I tune unisons, I just eliminate the whine which I was surprised to learn when i analised it, is only the second partial. I always hear it as much higher in the spectrum. I still do even tho I know it isn't.

I always listen to and subdue the more whining partial when I tune 5ths. I can't remember when I last counted 15 beats in ten miniutes or whatever it is yet the work of my colleagues always sounds right to me and my work sounds right to them. ( I do a lot of concert work where, for scheduling reasons, the piano was tuned only a few hours before, often by one of 5-6 other people). On the face of it, the results are the same but piano trios and ensembles involving piano and professional string players ask for me and I really can't pinpoint why. Nor can they. I artificially stretch trebles less than most. Contrary to the popular concept about string players playing sharp. maybe, in some way, I'm giving them something to tune sharp from without sounding too sharp. Who knows how they hear.

I have found, in quick touch up tunings, intervals I have accepted in the middle of the piano when I start need attention when I use them for checks in the treble and my hearing is focused higher. Also, on a quick check, I might think to myself 'not much to do here'. Then, when I get into it and really start listening it there's a lot more than I thought. Sometimes i find a lot less when I have thought there was a lot to do. it's at those times I'm thankful my hearing can deceive me.

Electronically produced long tones can appear to go very sharp when the volume Is lowered. I noticed this when I was younger. The phenomenon seem less pronounced these days. Am I a more practiced listener, hearing loss that eliminates higher partials that seem to be a primary cause of this phenomenon.

I read in this fOrum that one person had more tonal discrimination when he put his musicians ear plugs in. I seem to hear tonal changes that others don't and that could be a result of hearing loss. My hearing cut off at 13,000hz. on a rough check with an iPhone tuning app. That's an octave and a half higher than I need for tuning pianos. I'm going for a hearing test in a couple of days, just out of interest because I was offered one. I look forward to finding out what I'm supposed to be missing.

I particularly enjoyed the illusions with words. I could make em say almost anything. Thank you.

Hello, that is interesting, I agree the whine is mostly coming from the second partial, but I am sure there is also something coming from the fundamental. In fact when the whine is suppressed at the partial level ( it can raise up to the 5th partial on some pianos, when listening closely to the partials and tuning you hear a real rainbow with one partial coming more in front then another - of course that depend of the iH level of the piano)

Interesting that you say you don't listen to the fundamental, doe sit mean that you "know" (because of a long habit) when the fundamental is good ?

I learned at some point to listen to the way the fundamental energize the partial spectra : more, or less.

It can be very well perceived in the basses, where a neat and clean partial spectra provokes sometime a large inflation of the thickness of the fundamental, that may sound as a beat, but obviously it is not one, as the partials are not beating, you agree with me ?

I learned to recognize the dynamic behavior of the coupling in regard of the fundamental, that mean (as a result) a tone that projects more or less that is also more or less strong, attack wise.

As this is somewhat mysterious, I finally relate it to a slight delay in coupling at the 2nd partial level, that change the crispness of the attack.

FOr some time I was so much listening to the fundamental behavior and the way the note "speaks" that I could leave some moaning in the partials without noticing (and the strongest full tone at the attack time)

Actually I take care of having that jump from the fundamental energy immediately in a clean 2nd partial, then I focus on the high partials beginning with the second one.

High partials are often confused with mating and voicing problems , but the global energy sensation tell us if we are on the good track or no.

It is possible to tune "only the fundamental" for the stronger and no beating tone, and then there is a slow moaning coming from the partials. Some pianos may even benefit of that (pianos with limited spectra for instance) , but the dynamic range is reduced ,too much energy is used for the fundamental , seem to me.

IUt makes a sort of "vulgar" tone, closed and non expressive (but the whine is not to be considered as a "beat" if we follow the usual terminology, it is a very slow beat due to the iH or discrepancies between partials.

So it sound evident to me that to build tone, the tuner have to listen to the partials (even in the top regions) and manage them so their energy flow is gentle, quiet and calm.

AT some point that flow create the most expressive and the most manageable tone, it is very easily noticed because the piano is providing a large dynamic plague, beginning with a neat and crisp attack.

I consider recognizing the attack quality for a given piano allows to gain some time in unison tuning. unfortunately some delay is necessary for the moved elements to settle back, be it the tuning pin or the wire.

So we are obliged to spend some time on each note or to make a second picky pass.

Voila

Tuning a violent attack is possible, as tuning a delayed one (you feel the tone builds a little late in the key ,as opposed to an immediate feeling of power, which is possible without real moaning)

I find the differences between unison tuner's tone there, even if generally the attack is not worked precisely so many have a similar tone where the attack is the automatic result of the partial's tuning, hence a similar tone for most tuners.

At some point the tuner is more at ease concentrating on the pin's behavior and does not have to analyse so precisely what he is doing, hopefully.

Our ears tend to get tired, and age, however, A friend I have is producing turnings that are more brilliant today than they where. I probably begin to hear less well the last upper notes partials.


About unison shape, I wonder if I do tune 2 strings focused on fundamental, and the 3d focused on 2nd partial. That is probably the case, and the 2nd partial is higher than fundamental, hence a different coupling, but a tone reinforcement between the strings at that point.

That is what is called "largeness of tone" or "opening " of the unison. (and why it is easier to obtain a thicker body on a STeinway than on a Fazioli)

That "quadratic effect" (I hardly find more info on this) that was stated lately is also may be explaining why when tuning playing extra strong one can access to very different unison, that allow the tone at FFF to be really neat. Very probably the justness can change also.


Top treble may be coupling with a maximum notes below in the scale, that is why extra stretch only on the last notes is not so excellent. The tone reinforce naturally usually.

I often perceive too high notes in the treble as being too low, while I did not find a correct explanation for that out of the iH of the piano tending to push the envelope to more stretch as soon as a certain level is passed)

Greetings

Interesting experiences, thanks for sharing.

I wonder how many tuners can perceive a phantom M3 based on that partial spectra, none, I believe.

Do some of you perceive that raising 2 tones ?

Quite so Isaac, quite so but I am a simple commercial tuner with no pretentions to artsy-phartsiness. I simple eradicate the elements of an unison I find offensive and let the rest fall where it may. Others might hear it differently. My point was simply that the result, to all intents and purposes is the same. The fundamental may Indeed begin to beat after the note has faded away but that always shows in or shortly after the attack. I know It is possible to tune it in a way that doesn't sustain but I am congenitally incapable of doing that.

I create pitch and sustain that any listening musicians involved find easy, nay, predictable to work with and the pianists are given an attack they can control. I am merely their servant using simple, tried and tested expedient methods. That's all I'm being asked to do. If I wanted to do more, I'd have to play the bloody thing myself and you'll not catch me doing that. Not without the curtains closed.

If I perceive a lack of sustain in a note, (which also almost always shows itself in the attack), I can deal with it in short order with a choice of measures, depending on where the problem originates. I will certainly not compromise a unison in order try to solve a problem that does not originate in the unison.

Perhaps im being too simplistic.

To return the subject to the thread, those that hear in a way that can appreciate what I do are keeping me in work, more than I want. Those that don't can go elsewhere. It's the way the world has always worked.

And...

Vive la différence.

Hi RXD, thanks for answering, I dont pretend to any artistic tuning (and would not vary an unison energy just to lenghten a note, it would be noticed)

I always wanted to understand better, mostly.

and wanted to find some explanations about tone, and also about stability.

I generally find the tunings of my colleagues very good, unison wise.

But it happened that I change a little the body of the tuning after litening a rehearsal, and I also was explained I could change the output of my work simply by playing more or less hard while tuning.

That gives a little more possibilities, and a large domain where to look for answers.

ALl the best

I agree. Isaac, style of playing the notes can make a difference. I normally tune at a firm mf and do everything at the pin and strings going into the capo as we discussed in another thread. I will smack it one very occasionally if there's something in the note(s) I'm not sure about. There's a thread on that subject currently, I noticed. I'll have to take a look.

I noice stuff at rehearsals. I used to call myself a recovering perfectionist. I have to tell myself, as I said in another thread here, there comes a poInt where the rest is up to the pianist. On a 4 day recording tune and attend I might make some changes to the first couple of tunings but predictability for the pianist is paramount. They are under enough pressure without the tuner buggerin' about. No matter how well intentioned. We are there to help.

I love to hear a pianist getting the feel of a piano and creating tone after a few
Minuites. Once they've got it, I don't want to make them have to keep finding it again so i maintain that level of tuning and adjustment. If the pianist wants anything else, I'm there for them. I'm not there for me.

I guess thats what I'm trying to say in my clumsy way.

You can tell all my tunings are minor touch ups today with over an hour in between. I'm boring everybody to death here.

Indeed , RXD, I generally ask if I feel I can do something to help the pianist, not just before an important venue most probably, but sometime it happened at some occasion.
Then I propose, I show the differnce, and I am pleased to see most pianists undertand what it is, they agree or say it is OK for them as it is. (sometime also minor adjustments on touch)

It is a good opportunity to be there twice (then as you said our tiome is too much constrained very often before the concert)

I rarely had pianists asking for another tone, but it happened that Jazz musicians wanted more immediateness at the attack.

ANd it happened that I was complimented while I did not new what I did of any particular.

I understand what you say on recording sessions, and that is why we are in demand (optimize the tone and leave the pianists exprim himself) . then indeed no parcticular change, it would be counterproductive, a brillant note there or a ringing beat on some note between the takes is all that is asked, hopefully.

I get all what you say, I just cannot refrain myself to try to open a debate, or raise the discussion , so the colleagues try to examine what they are doing a little more (and go to false conclusion then , as I certainly did mor ethan once )

Also, to be tuning "naturally" , as good (experimented) tuner does, one may have tuned quite a lot of first grade instruments in good condition, also have listened to a lot of music (and not in MP3 !) in concerts, recordings, etc.

THose days, I noticed the younger tuners are often easily coming to a good tone, way mor ethan it was some 20 years ago, and they learn sooner how to have stable tunings. This is a good thing.

Hey, I apologize about the out of topic. I will try to come back with something about that quadra effect, I'll try to find where are the documents, etc...

find that one and interesting :
The sound of
a piano string begins indeed with an audible high frequency chock, corresponding to the chock
of the hammer on the string. It is transmitted very quickly to the rest of the structure through
the longitudinal wave whose propagation speed is about ten times greater than the transversal
one.

I tried the "illusions" of the Deutcsh smaples and I dont understand

That "illusion " is not one, there are 2 scales played together.

I dont understand where the illusion is



The chromatic illusion is the same, all the notes are played chromatically I have no surprise to hear them !

So start a thread on what you want to say. Those interested will respond and all the discussion will be in one place instead of scattering the same old song among other threads.

Well I love you too RXD, and accept the compliment, as I tend to discuss the same way as if we where all around a table eating very good meal

But once in a time I believe I was just fully in the theme of the debate , while not being able to explain myself in English as well as I wished)

I also preclude that some of the participants know practically what we are discussing about - while I noticed no much answers on the subject of tone, so once in a while a subject is addressing tone perception..

I regret and would apologize if I felt our exchange was out of the focus but I know it was not be it in a sinusoidal way

Thanks for your first post BTW , it stated clearly many important things and your own questioning, may be someone will answer that one, too (someday)

ALl the best

Perhaps it needs to be established that this thread is about how things can be perceived differently by different people. It also includes the possibility of listening long enough so that the sounds can be heard in a different way. Then, after that, see if we can change our perception at will. A good ex revise fOr anyone involved with sound.

I find the examples fascinating. Yes, some of them are tricks of tone quality, knowing this, we can 'make' ourselves hear them differently at will, Just like the well know optical illusions.

The different way each of us hears is neither good nor bad right/wrong artistic or vulgar. It simply is.

An orchestra can play together despite this. A string section sounds lush because of this. Some play slightly above the pitch, some on the pitch and some below it. If a brass section played that way it would sound merely amateurish they have to find ways of working more accurately together. Compounded by the fact that some musicians habitually play slightly ahead of the beat, some on it, some behind the beat.
Ask any wind player to listen to a string player play a scale and vice versa. Each would accuse the other of poor intonation if they were inexperienced. Even in these days of equal temperament.

Orchestral musicians do not work to a fixed temperament as is commonly believed but each is on constant alert to all others' timing and intonation The emotional temperament of a musician has to be an understanding of differing perceptions. it really is a miracle/illusion that an orchestra hangs together at all. Ultimate team work, the ability to play artistically and also in accord with any number of others. One lapse of attention and the illusion/ miracle is lost.

Each musicians know that theirs is not the only way of hearing.

Audio illusion?

Assuming we are referring to the same thread, I suspect this case had more to do with the sound of the instrument than the the pianist's ear.

He had found the tonal range of a Mason & Hamlin BB was lacking compared to his erstwhile Shigeru. Then he put in his musician's earplugs while playing the BB and discovered the tonal range he was looking for.

Those earplugs attenuated the sound progessively above 6,000 kHz so it appears likely that the characteristic tone of a Mason & Hamlin depends, to some significant degree, on the high frequency overtones it produces in the 6,000 - 10,000 kHz range.

Thank you, Ian.

I meant to ask when I first read it.

We are on a term defining mission again. I may have slightly misunderstood.

Was the range of tone greater in quality or quantity?

I don't understand how, when 6-10,000 is gradually attenuated by the earplugs you deduce that M&H tone depends on that range to a significant degree because attenuating them gave the perception of the instrument greater tonal range?

I hope the answer to the last question is dependent on the first, so tha I won't have to think.

Well, it would help if I had an M&H to hand but I haven't and didn't come across one on my grand piano day in London in the autumn.

As I recall the pianist said the Shigeru had a wide dynamic range and a wide tonal range while the M&H had a wide dynamic range but little tonal range. I took this to mean that a note sounded much the same to him tonally however it was played. There was some corroboration for that. He stressed that he liked the tone (quality?) but was frustrated because he could not vary it (quantity?).

Put in earplugs, cut back on high frequency overtones (in the attack?), and everything is hunky-dory for the pianist.

Now we should ask some listeners whether the piano sounds the same to them with or without their wearing earplugs. I'd guess they'll say it sounds different, hence my deduction.

Maybe someone with an M&H and some musician's earplugs will try.

PS The unanswered question at the end of that thread was whether voicing would fully expand the tonal range or whether the pianist might learn to hear it without earplugs.

Thank you, Ian.

I meant to ask when I first read it.

We are on a term defining mission again. I may have slightly misunderstood.

Was the range of tone greater in quality or quantity?

I don't understand how, when 6-10,000 is gradually attenuated by the earplugs, you deduce that M&H tone depends on that range to a significant degree because attenuating them gave the perception of the instrument greater tonal range?

I have read a similar constatation from a pianist that tested a M&H in a shop there, and wrote about it; he find a very large dynamic, mostly concentrated at the beginning of the tone, without much color change. (more power, mostly)

I am vaguely feeeling that low iH scales favour a very clear tone with more partials and less fundamental (in comparaison) hence a tone that seem to stay the same at low levels and high levels, straightened, if you see what I mean.

Optimisation of soundboards may also provide that (bridge more centered, large cut off bar)

I have read that some of the "barrel" tone that stay in older designs is a comfort element for the pianist.

May be also in the dynamics, those "parasitic tones" mix with the main tone, allowing more perspectives.

Earplugs are also used for the student tuner so he can focus on the body of tone, and learn the basis of string coupling (the mind/ear is then not perturbed with different partials beats and moaning)

Thanks for the slight clarification, Ian. It seems the language of the original article wasn't very precise. Thank you for reminding me of the article, it was a springboard for thought for me, whatever it meant.

You headed your question with the word "illusion?". If we know how an illusion is created, is it still an illusion. I guess we're getting into finer definitions again.

I only ever saw one M&H in Europe. It was a BB and belonged to an American diplomat in the days when many diplomats played the piano and took their pianos with them. Some still do.
A few years later, I worked for an M&H dealer in the days before Bruce sorted them out. They were being slung together but a good piano could always be made out of them, even the illusion of a great one from time to time.