Should There Be A Standard?

Posted by: OperaTenor

Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 01:24 PM

After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 01:56 PM

I have stated before that there are two standards: Just intonation and equal temperament. These exist by their very nature. Other temperaments are defined by them. The number of beats is the variation from just intonation. The number of cents is the variation from equal temperament.

None of this is to be construed as an endorsement of any temperament. It is just how things are.

One final point: Most instruments do not have any fixed temperament. Even if they do, they are not necessary defined closely. For instance, a pedal harp is supposed to be tuned to a specific temperament which depends on the pedal mechanism, but may vary according to how accurately it is made, or any number of other factors which may not be immediately evident.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 02:55 PM

If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 03:14 PM

Originally Posted By: rxd
If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.


Right.

I'm interested to see what the proponents of UT's have to say about it, as they have been disparaging of that standard.
Posted by: wouter79

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 03:34 PM

I see at least two questions

1. standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe

I think "failsafe" is the selling point of ET. At least everything sounds the same amount out of tune, so it's consistent. It seems a good fit for romantic, jazz and modern stuff that has dissonant chords and uses different keys without intending to change sharpness of the sound. ET seems less fit for classic and baroque stuff where composers DID use UT and used these changes. ET then still is 'failsafe' but the player then has somehow to compensate for the loss in tonal changes.

2. upon which all musicians can ultimately rely

I don't think it's that easy, musicians will do their best to get a nice performance, so if UT gives them an edge in a particular performance they will consider it. I doubt however that much performers and listeners really bother about, or hear the difference ET-UT.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 04:39 PM

Hey Jim!

I was actually thinking of starting a thread introducing a "functional ET" based on margin of error - what actually gets tuned in the real world by those aiming at ET.

Consider this target:


Perfect score! All the arrows are in the middle... (Pretend there are as many arrows as notes in the temperament.) Now what's the margin for error for that yellow circle - 1 cent, 1/2 cent? In reality, for the piano to be in ET, the arrows would have to be "Robin Hood style" - splitting each other to fit in a circle the diameter of the arrow - zero margin for error.

We established in the other thread that there is some... slush in the actual placement of ET on real pianos. 1 cent, 2 cents or more for a note or two? And then there are "ET only" techs happy to hit arrows into the blue or black target areas and call it a day...

That would seem to indicate that quite a few temperaments fit in your ideal "standard"...

With that in mind, here is something for you electronic tuning types to try as an ET replacement - all the standard warnings apply as using a machine to set ET on a piano.

Koval variable temperament, 1.3 strength

C 1.3
C# -.17
D .52
D# .78
E -.52
F 1.3
F# -.35
G .87
G# .35
A 0.0
A# 1.13
B -.65

Major thirds range from 11.9 cents wide of just to 15.2 cents wide.

Obviously, the tighter your tuning standards are for open string tuning (4 lights on SAT, full blush RCT, 0.0 Verituner etc..) the cleaner the effect. Simply put, a few keys at the top of the circle play a little "warmer", a few at the bottom are a touch "edgier" and the rest are ETish. Clear to experience the difference by playing Bmaj, Cmaj, C#maj triads in a row.

What I hear back from clients is that my tunings are warmer than other techs. This is my standard in use all over town. The concept is to target in the direction of a mild WT in order to prevent a Reverse Well by accident when the margin for error comes into play.


Ron Koval
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 05:43 PM


Question:

Equal Temperament is a relative term. That is, relative to the temperaments which preceded it. The Robin Hood arrow analogy attempts to define it exclusively as perfect temperament. In an imperfect world no temperament whatsoever will be perfect. Having said this, if we are not going to call it Equal Temperament, then what shall we?
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?


Why, certainly. All they have to do is accept the loss of variety. The desire for universal runs somewhat opposite to the drive for unique, and musical art tends to benefit from unique, not sameness. Do we not enjoy different artists performing the same works? Is it too complex a chore to enjoy the same work in a variety of tunings? The amount of harmonic color in a triad is very much like the amount of salt in a dish. Some want everything to taste the same, others like to sense the balance and interplay of various sensations. I favor the latter, as it is more complex.

"Failsafe" is probably as tight a description for artistic loss as we are likely to find. If the performer isn't taking chances, it is a dead show.
regards,
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 08:25 PM

Originally Posted By: bkw58

Question:

Equal Temperament is a relative term. That is, relative to the temperaments which preceded it. The Robin Hood arrow analogy attempts to define it exclusively as perfect temperament. In an imperfect world no temperament whatsoever will be perfect. Having said this, if we are not going to call it Equal Temperament, then what shall we?


Absolutely. Generally speaking, I think most here who advocate the use of ET concede that it isn't perfect. I always refer to it as a series of relatively consistent compromises, or, equally out of tune.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 08:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?


Why, certainly. All they have to do is accept the loss of variety. The desire for universal runs somewhat opposite to the drive for unique, and musical art tends to benefit from unique, not sameness. Do we not enjoy different artists performing the same works? Is it too complex a chore to enjoy the same work in a variety of tunings? The amount of harmonic color in a triad is very much like the amount of salt in a dish. Some want everything to taste the same, others like to sense the balance and interplay of various sensations. I favor the latter, as it is more complex.

"Failsafe" is probably as tight a description for artistic loss as we are likely to find. If the performer isn't taking chances, it is a dead show.
regards,


A solo performer, perhaps, but if you've got a symphony orchestra and a cast of singers in an opera, perhaps not.

To me, there's a difference.
Posted by: daniokeeper

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/24/13 08:31 PM

What's wrong with the artist giving "informed consent"? After all, they are supposed to be professionals. If they don't understand the difference between ET and UTs, they should make in effort to learn at least a little about it, IMO.

Further, why should an artist be limited? If he/she wants ET, fine. If he/she wants a UT, fine.

Btw, there's ET, and then there's ET. There can be all sorts of legitimate variations in stretch choices. Should there be only one acceptable amount of octave stretch in all circumstances? How far should this standardization go?

Voicing... Should all pianos be voiced the same way? Do we want only one standardized voice for all pianos that all manufacturers, and their technicians, should adhere to?

Should we have one standard wood finish? Should all pianos be ebony colored? Or, dark walnut?

Only one standard touchweight?
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/25/13 12:01 AM


After a lengthy discussion with my Better Half, I'll be doing good if any one temperament can be made the standard in my own house. Good night sleep
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/25/13 05:43 AM

WHat are we talking of standards.

Music that I receive when I did not ask just leaved the 3 chords pattern for a 2 chords one.

Rhythm have gone to 120 bps 2/2 so some tuner pretend you can learn to count beat by remembering of that 120 pulse.

out of tuneless that relates to UT's is not appreciated by pianists as they need to play a whole range of music .

Itmay be done on ancien instruments in a particular context, never was asked on a modern one. If I would tune one the pianist would play and consider it as sloppy , most of the time.

Too stretched tunings as well can be considered out of standard tune.



Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/25/13 09:50 PM

Make your tuning fit your customer's needs(wants, desires). If you can play a pretty song after you finish tuning the piano, and it makes her cry, then you have done your job.
Posted by: peekay

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/25/13 11:45 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

A solo performer, perhaps, but if you've got a symphony orchestra and a cast of singers in an opera, perhaps not.

To me, there's a difference.

The big irony is that a cast of opera singers, left to themselves in close harmony, would naturally sing to just intonation -- not equal temperament.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 12:28 AM

Originally Posted By: peekay
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

A solo performer, perhaps, but if you've got a symphony orchestra and a cast of singers in an opera, perhaps not.

To me, there's a difference.

The big irony is that a cast of opera singers, left to themselves in close harmony, would naturally sing to just intonation -- not equal temperament.


It would be a great argument if it were true. It's a common assumption.
Listen carefully. In my experience, the major thirds as sung by professional opera principals and chorus tend to be wider than ET. The strings in the orchestra do the same thing if you listen. (they also do it if you don't listen).

It is barbershop that tends toward purer M3rds but not all the time.
Posted by: peekay

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 12:59 AM

Actually, it is true. Basically any unaccompanied (a cappella) singing will naturally tend to just intonation or other natural temperaments (e.g., pythagorean).

Yes, in our "modern" times, opera singers (and violinists) who are trained to be part of an orchestra are also "trained" to sing/play in equal temperament. But leave them alone, unaccompanied by a tempered instrument, and sooner or later they will gravitate to some form of just intonation (which there are many).

There have been a lot of research into this phenomena. Here's a good recent one from the Norwegian Academy of Music through observations of some of the best classical vocal ensembles in the world:

http://musicandpractice.org/musicandpractice/article/view/18/6

Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 01:43 AM

Yes, I've read that too. Many things appear true on paper. It's good to hear that the subject is being addressed at least at a local level but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nobody's complaining about the intonation of a good orchestra or opera group. It's not the problem.

I only ask you all to listen for yourself. Recorded or live, (preferably). It is readily discernible to me.

And where on earth does anybody get the idea that Pythagorean is a "natural" temperament and what does that mean anyway? I hope you didn't imply that the arrangement of the 12 notes cunningly called just intonation was another natural temperament. That surely would be a readily apparent contradiction in terms. So is the idea that there are many forms of just intonation. Just is just.

I'm not sure I want my opera experience to sound the same as my barbershop experience.

Has anybody ever attempted to tune a simple major scale without the need for something to be averaged?. Even a seemingly simple diatonic peal of 8 bells has to be tempered on at the very least a few notes. Ask Barry at the Whitechapel foundry.
Posted by: Mark R.

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 07:06 AM

Thank you, rxd. I thought I was the only one to have heard several a-capella choirs sing M3s that are at least as wide as ET, and often wider. Nothing just about them. And these are not orchestra musicians that have somehow been "spoiled" by years of ET "training".

For those interested, I have an even simpler example than rxd's diatonic peal of 8 bells, from my own experience. Even a simple pentatonic wind chime, the pipes tuned for example to D, E, G, A and B, must have some tempered notes (i.e. some intervals will always beat), because some of the overtone ratios don't line up perfectly. In the above example:
1) the E can be tuned as a "major wholetone" (9/8) to the D, making it beatless to the A, but beating (narrow) against G and B. Or...
2) E can be tuned down by a syntonic comma, making it a "minor wholetone" (10/9) to the D, beatless to G and B, but now beating (wide) against A. Or...
3) E can be tuned as as a compromise between the two, e.g. an ET wholetone to D, now almost beatless against G, A and B.

(Been there, cut and fine-tuned copper pipes... choices, choices, choices, even on five little pieces of pipe. Looks nice, sounds quite OK, but there's nothing "just" about that E.)
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 07:37 AM

Solo violin will enlarge the M3 as a natural melodic tendency.

context wise
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 08:56 AM

Having been involved in major recordings of piano trios I find the string players rarely precisely match the pitches of the piano. Nor is it necessary or even desirable within limits. They are on a differing tonal plane, somehow. the tone of each is so different. the same thing happens with singers. That inherent flexibility pf tone is part of what makes a fine piano such an ideal collaborative instrument. That is a fine piano. A poor toned piano can create problems where they needn't exist. A fine pianist capable of grading the tone color to allow others in the ensemble this freedom is another essential.
That may be why equal temperament continues to be be found ideal or at least eminently workable.

That's one of the glories of the medium. A violin or cello can soar in their own continuous ribbons of string intonation that doesn't necessarily have to totally agree with the pianos' succession of notes which is more like a row of pearls, if I may wax somewhat poetic, there is lots of musical room between them.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 09:20 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
Having been involved in major recordings of piano trios I find the string players rarely precisely match the pitches of the piano. Nor is it necessary or even desirable within limits. They are on a differing tonal plane, somehow. the tone of each is so different. the same thing happens with singers. That inherent flexibility pf tone is part of what makes a fine piano such an ideal collaborative instrument.


Greetings,
I wonder how many string players have actually had experience with the intonational landscape provided by a well-tempered piano. The ones I encounter have a far easier time playing "in tune" with a palette of increasing thirds than they do with strict ET. I consider ignorance to be the prime motivator, as very, very, few string players could give you a definition of temperament or why we have to have it.

I have also noticed that when there is a piano involved with a string quartet, the intonation goes out the window as soon as the piano begins playing. The players tell me that playing with a piano requires they forget about what each other is doing and try to match to the piano. A mild WT seems to allow them more room for expression, and their harmony amongst themselves is more accurate.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 09:55 AM

As a professional singer (hence the user ID), RXD is correct. Just intonation maybe the tendency, but we never really get there on our own.

All of our lives, our pitch reference has almost exclusively been a piano, and while some believe there's such a thing as "perfect pitch," it is in reality pitch memory. Some of us have a more refined sense of it than others, and what we remember is what we hear - primarily from a piano.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 11:08 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
All of our lives, our pitch reference has almost exclusively been a piano, ..., - primarily from a piano.

For a vocalist, I believe that is probably true. Introduction to singing is often in a choral tradition, accompanied by a fixed pitch, keyboard instrument.

But, instrumentalists are trained and 'grow up' without the influence of a fixed pitch instrument. Being accompanied by a piano is a very minor experience compared to being in a band or orchestra. The major influence affecting the concept of intonation is developed through the means of ensemble, rather than tempering intonation to a fixed pitch instrument.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 12:01 PM

It's unfortunate, Ed, that most piano quintets are made up of a star pianist and a star string quartet. For that reason, I don't think I've ever heard a truly successful colaboration, mainly, I suppose because I avoid them, particularly when the quartet takes its name from the name of the first violinist.

A committed string quartet will have their own intonation patterns, often with a shifting pitch base It is too much to ask them to relinquish this highly developed quality in favour of any fixed intonation. Nor should we ask this of them. A mentor of mine when I was a teenager was a violinist who was instructed as a student at the Royal. College of m over 100 years ago now, never to play with piano accompaniment if he wanted to become a successful string quartet player.

Conversely a piano trio is usually also a self contained unit and it's musicians well used to listening with a piano constantly in the context. This makes a huge difference. That plus the pianist gets to choose his piano from a bank of pianos that have been already preselected for their qualities for concert use. They know I will be able to do things with the tuning of such a piano and still stay within the law since I must also think of string players' tendencies in melodic intonation.

For me, while the piano trio is a flexible format, the piano quintet and even quartet seems unwieldy to me, perhaps from hearing too much of the situation I just described in the first paragraph.

Have string quartet cellists where you are all developed the fetish of leaving strings ringing like they do here? Fiddlers can get away with it but cello strings ring 3-4 times longer. Can be effective but mostly not. I must have come into contact with 6-7 string quartets so far this year and they all do the same. must be something in the water.

Schubert writes well for piano quintet. Trout in particular. The way the piano part is often written like another single line instrument in octaves contributes to its cohesiveness. That plus using a viol is more coherent with piano sound somehow and lends a binding effect when it's tone is present anywhere in the texture.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 12:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
All of our lives, our pitch reference has almost exclusively been a piano, ..., - primarily from a piano.

For a vocalist, I believe that is probably true. Introduction to singing is often in a choral tradition, accompanied by a fixed pitch, keyboard instrument.

But, instrumentalists are trained and 'grow up' without the influence of a fixed pitch instrument. Being accompanied by a piano is a very minor experience compared to being in a band or orchestra. The major influence affecting the concept of intonation is developed through the means of ensemble, rather than tempering intonation to a fixed pitch instrument.


So very true, Marty. The local band I was brought up in had a championship professional euphonium player as conductor. He would often play when conducting was unnecessary and instil in us all a sense of good tone quality and intonation. I noticed for some time now that too many band directors no longer play and so students don't get a good example set before them.

I don't remember anybody teaching us or even speaking about intonation. We just, as you say, "grew up with it".
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 01:30 PM

Originally Posted By: rxd
I don't remember anybody teaching us or even speaking about intonation. We just, as you say, "grew up with it".

You weren't hammered with "listen, listen, listen?" WOW !!!

Playing in tune was stressed, in band, all the time. It's the whole concept of Bb tuning. Temperament, or "a temperament" was an unknown concept. In tune was the goal! Though, even to our developing sense of intonation, we could surely tell when a piano was out of tune. That unison thing, ya know. Aargh!

Bb was the center of our universe. Life deviated from the great and cosmic center of our lives!

Ah, such fond memories. grin
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 01:52 PM

Yes, I remember now. This was a village under a mountain. The BBC radio antenna was atop this mountain so they had no radio and no television reception. They still spoke King James' bible style English. So the word I heard there was "Harken".

There were only 2-3 of us 10-12 year olds in a band of adults so most of what we learned was by osmosis. We got paid the same as the rest of the band for all engagements so we were the richest kids on the block.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 01:53 PM

personally I was trained to sing the A 440 once a day at last, during lunch ! control at the piano .
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 02:08 PM

I developed a good pitch memory automatically except it was at A=457 old band pitch, a throwback to some old mitary pitch that the instruments were built in
When I switched to 440 i Iost that questionable skill.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 02:43 PM

rxd,

Wasn't that the instrument that John Phillip Sousa wrote his masterpiece opera Die Zauberalpenhorn?

whistle
Posted by: peekay

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 03:25 PM

Originally Posted By: rxd

And where on earth does anybody get the idea that Pythagorean is a "natural" temperament and what does that mean anyway?

Pythagorean and Just Intonation are musical tunings which correspond to naturally occurring harmonic series.

Originally Posted By: rxd

[...]That surely would be a readily apparent contradiction in terms. So is the idea that there are many forms of just intonation. Just is just.

Wow, no, I can't begin to tell you how wrong that statement is. But, in a way, it might explain why many in this thread have a hard time understanding why any a cappella choir will gravitate to Just Intonation.

Just Intonation is not one tuning or scale. Just Intonation is a system of tunings, all of which correspond to a harmonic series. That is to say, for a particular Just Intonation tuning, every note in that tuning correspond to the same harmonic series.

Mathematically, we can construct a particular Just Intonation tuning by using integer ratios of (small) prime multiples. Since there are many ways we can arrange ratios of these numbers, there are many ways we can construct Just Intonation tunings.

The Pythagorean tuning, for example, is a Just Intonation tuning where the largest prime (N) is limited to 3. So the N=3 ratios in the Pythagorean system are based on powers of 2 and 3.

Another way to construct a (different) Just Intonation tuning is to use primes up to 5 (so the N=5 ratios are powers of 2, 3 and 5). The Ptolemy's Sequence is one example of a N=5 Just Intonation scale (there are many others).

Of course we can construct Just Intonation tunings based on higher prime limits, e.g., M=7, M=11, M=13, etc. Additionally there are also many tunings not based on 12-note scales.

For singers to sing in harmony, sooner or later they will converge on a harmonic series (if not accompanied by a tempered instrument). This is why there is always a pull to Just Intonation, since by definition a collection of notes from a harmonic series forms a Just Intonation tuning.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 04:09 PM

I can see the reason for a strict standard of tuning for certain situations; those where multiple techs are rotated to take care of the same piano. It just seems that it would be easier on both the techs and the piano if the same targets were always used...

In fact, being in a large metro area, there are a few of us that follow each other as different performing groups hire the tuner at the same venue.

There is this one aural tech I follow that I can always tell it was him before me... You might think that I'm going to use an example of how far off from ET he tunes, but it is just the opposite. He must tune with near zero margin for error - just playing chromatic triads, the consistent busyness sticks out from the other ET techs that I follow. (I think the consistency is felt through the ratio of the major thirds beating to the minor thirds beating in a triad - no matter where on the keyboard, the ratio should be the same in ET - tricky to accomplish!)

Last time he followed up on me, he made a point to find me and say "hey, you left it in ET this time for me!" He knows I usually use a really mild WT, but it never is a cause for concern - our seasonal (sometimes weekly) fluctuations are far greater than any few cents difference in the temperament!

Ron Koval
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
All of our lives, our pitch reference has almost exclusively been a piano, ..., - primarily from a piano.

For a vocalist, I believe that is probably true. Introduction to singing is often in a choral tradition, accompanied by a fixed pitch, keyboard instrument.

But, instrumentalists are trained and 'grow up' without the influence of a fixed pitch instrument. Being accompanied by a piano is a very minor experience compared to being in a band or orchestra. The major influence affecting the concept of intonation is developed through the means of ensemble, rather than tempering intonation to a fixed pitch instrument.


My comment was in response to peekay's post regarding singers and just intonation. Sure, it's different with regards to instrumentalists.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 08:41 PM

Originally Posted By: peekay
Originally Posted By: rxd

And where on earth does anybody get the idea that Pythagorean is a "natural" temperament and what does that mean anyway?

Pythagorean and Just Intonation are musical tunings which correspond to naturally occurring harmonic series.

Originally Posted By: rxd

[...]That surely would be a readily apparent contradiction in terms. So is the idea that there are many forms of just intonation. Just is just.

Wow, no, I can't begin to tell you how wrong that statement is. But, in a way, it might explain why many in this thread have a hard time understanding why any a cappella choir will gravitate to Just Intonation.

Just Intonation is not one tuning or scale. Just Intonation is a system of tunings, all of which correspond to a harmonic series. That is to say, for a particular Just Intonation tuning, every note in that tuning correspond to the same harmonic series.

Mathematically, we can construct a particular Just Intonation tuning by using integer ratios of (small) prime multiples. Since there are many ways we can arrange ratios of these numbers, there are many ways we can construct Just Intonation tunings.

The Pythagorean tuning, for example, is a Just Intonation tuning where the largest prime (N) is limited to 3. So the N=3 ratios in the Pythagorean system are based on powers of 2 and 3.

Another way to construct a (different) Just Intonation tuning is to use primes up to 5 (so the N=5 ratios are powers of 2, 3 and 5). The Ptolemy's Sequence is one example of a N=5 Just Intonation scale (there are many others).

Of course we can construct Just Intonation tunings based on higher prime limits, e.g., M=7, M=11, M=13, etc. Additionally there are also many tunings not based on 12-note scales.

For singers to sing in harmony, sooner or later they will converge on a harmonic series (if not accompanied by a tempered instrument). This is why there is always a pull to Just Intonation, since by definition a collection of notes from a harmonic series forms a Just Intonation tuning.


Then why is it that they don't?
Have you listened closely to anything yet?
Is this your own work or what you understand from someone else's work?
There's a lot missing.

Try this;

Write a 3 part progression that goes from Cmajor directly to a chord of E major by means of 2 voices moving in opposite directions by a small minor second and the third voice staying still and then works back to C through a series of dominants. Does your hypothetical choir end up flat, sharp, or in tune? And by how much? Then work it out with the opening progression moving by large minor seconds. How do the results differ? Then do it all again in a minor key. (c# minor to A minor as the opening progression).

You can play with it more by using progressions of just thirds alternating with Pythagorean thirds (is a Pythagorean third a natural interval in and of itself? how would I construct one if I were to sing one?). The combinations are endless.

Then get it sung by real people. 10 seperate groups of 3 people with the random smattering of those with or without what is commonly known as perfect or absolute pitch. That should produce enough variety. What did they eventually gravitate to? Which of your theoretical findings did it agree with?

All fascinating stuff. Have fun with it.
Posted by: peekay

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/26/13 11:18 PM

How absurd. I'm not about to hire world class singers, and strand them in a deserted island for a few weeks to demonstrate what is already known: a convergence to just intonation.

It's easy to be a denier, without zero evidence and only anecdotal observations.

Stating bizarre things like "just is just" doesn't make it right and only shows lack of knowledge.

However, there is ample scientific evidence saying otherwise. The following references came from the last paper, maybe you care to refute all of them?

As the saying goes: "Have fun with it". wink


Alldahl, Per-Gunnar. 2004. Intonation i kör-sång (Stockholm: Gehrmans Musikförlag)
Backus, John. 1969. The acoustical foundations of music (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.)
Barbour, James Murray. 1951. Tuning and temperament: a historical survey (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications Inc.)

Bohrer, Jocelei Cirilo Soares. 2002. Intonational Strategies in Ensemble Singing (London: Ph.D. dissertation, City University)
Brown, Oren. 1996. Discover your voice (San Diego, CA: Singular publishing group)

Butler, David. 1992. The Musician’s Guide to Perception and Cognition (New York: Schirmer Books)

Covey-Crump, Rogers. 1992. ‘Vocal Consort Style and Tuning’ in Companion to Contemporary Musical Thought, II, ed. by J. Paynter and others (London and New York: Routledge Reference)

Devaney, Johanna. 2006. ‘A methodology for the study and modeling of choral intonation practices’, Conference proceeding of the 2006 International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna)
Devaney, Johanna and Daniel P. W. Ellis. 2008. ‘An Empirical Approach to Studying Intonation Tendencies in Polyphonic Vocal Performances’ in Journal of interdisciplinary music studies, 2/1&2
Duffin, Ross W.. 2007. How equal temperament ruined harmony (and why you should care) (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc.)
Goebl, Werner and Caroline Palmer. 2009. ‘Synchronization of timing and motion among performing musicians’ in Music Perception, 26/5, (CA: University of California Press), pp. 427-38

Hagerman B. and J. Sundberg. 1980. ‘Fundamental frequency adjustment in barbershop singing’ in Speech Transmission Laboratory Quarterly Progress and Status Report (STL-QPSR 21-1/1980), pp. 28-42
Helmholtz, Herman L. F.. 1954. On the Sensations of tone as a physiological basis for the theory of music, 2nd edition of the 4th German ed. of 1877 (New York: Dover Publications Inc.)
Larson, Steve. 2004. ‘Musical Forces and Melodic Expectations: Comparing Computer Models and Experimental Results’ in Music Perception, 21/4 (CA: University of California Press), pp. 457-99
Lerdahl, Fred. 2001. Tonal Pitch Space (New York: Oxford University Press)

Lerdahl, F. and C. L. Krumhansl. 2007. ‘Modelling tonal tension’ in Music Perception, 24/4 (CA: University of California Press), pp. 329-66
Loosen, Franz. 1995. ‘The Effect of Musical Experience on the Conception of Accurate Tuning’ in Music Perception, 12/3 (CA: University of California Press), pp. 291-306
Mandelbaum, Joel. 1974. ‘Review: Toward the Expansion of Our Concepts of Intonation’ in Perspectives of New Music, 13/1 (Seattle, WA: University of Washington), pp. 216-26
MacClintock, Carol. 1979. Readings in the history of music in performance (Bloomington and London: Indiana university press)
Morley, Thomas. 1597. A plain & easy introduction to practical music, ed. by R. Alec Harman (New York: W. W. Norton Company)
Norden, Norris Lindsay. 1936. ‘A new theory of Untempered Music’ in The Musical Quarterly, XXII, pp. 217-36

Plomp, Reinier. 1976. Aspects of Tone Sensation (London: Academic Press)

Tosi, Pier Francesco. 1747. Observations on the Florid Song; or, Sentiments on the Ancient and Modern Singers, translated by Mr. Galliard (London: J. Wilcox)
Schön, Donald. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner (San-Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass)
Seashore, Carl E.. 1938. Psychology of Music (New York: Dover Publications Inc.)

Sundberg, Johan. 2001. The Science of the singing voice (Stockholm: Proprius förlag)

Vurma, A. and J. Ross. 2006. ‘Production and perception of musical intervals’ in Music Perception, 23/4 (CA: University of California Press) pp. 331-44
Posted by: rysowers

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 01:25 AM

Here' my argument for why ET is the logical standard for tuning. Using the analogy of a target, consider the following:
We have 12 targets to represent the 12 notes of our temperament.
-Imagine each tuned note represents an arrow on its target.
-For the sake of this argument let's assume that if a note is on the target it will be basically unnoticeable to a client. Perhaps if they are a connoisseur they may recognize the tuning as not being ET, but there will be no wolfs.
-If we tune a strict equal temperament the arrows will all be in the bulls eye area of the target.

Here's the problem with the well tunings: Some of those arrows will be closer to the edges of the target. Humidity change and use will cause some of those arrows to drift. Once they drift off the target they become noticeable to the client as being out of tune.

With ET the notes will stay on target for longer. With changes in weather, the tuning will change, but it will sort of morph into some sort of well-tuning before it becomes noticeably out.

In other words with ET you get some of both worlds - the balanced, symmetrical sound of ET, which naturally evolves into a WT before deteriorating into just plain out of tune.

With UT, you will never experience the ET sound, and with humidity change the tuning will become noticeably off sooner.

As a professional tuner, one of my main concerns is stability. Since ET is arguable more stable than UT, it is a more logical choice for the standard tuning.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 02:04 AM

Peekay,
The whole world says so is not an answer.
The OP asked If there should be a standard.
The standard is currently ET
Why?
The whole world says so.
Many of us here do not accept that as an answer. Particularly those of us who listen intently.

I don't think it absurd to ask you for your own personal listening experience. To rely on the opinion of others is living vicariously, don't you think?

The reference to a desert island is your invention. Reduction ad absurdam is, among other cheap arguing techniques, often exposed in this forum for what it is. Getting a bunch of singers together locally should not be difficult for someone of your apparent experience and worldliness nor should the mathematics be beyond you. The exercise I gave you was based on something that occurred on a broadcast some years ago that has intrigued me for many years.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 02:17 AM

Originally Posted By: rysowers
Here' my argument for why ET is the logical standard for tuning. Using the analogy of a target, consider the following:
We have 12 targets to represent the 12 notes of our temperament.
-Imagine each tuned note represents an arrow on its target.
-For the sake of this argument let's assume that if a note is on the target it will be basically unnoticeable to a client. Perhaps if they are a connoisseur they may recognize the tuning as not being ET, but there will be no wolfs.
-If we tune a strict equal temperament the arrows will all be in the bulls eye area of the target.

Here's the problem with the well tunings: Some of those arrows will be closer to the edges of the target. Humidity change and use will cause some of those arrows to drift. Once they drift off the target they become noticeable to the client as being out of tune.

With ET the notes will stay on target for longer. With changes in weather, the tuning will change, but it will sort of morph into some sort of well-tuning before it becomes noticeably out.

In other words with ET you get some of both worlds - the balanced, symmetrical sound of ET, which naturally evolves into a WT before deteriorating into just plain out of tune.

With UT, you will never experience the ET sound, and with humidity change the tuning will become noticeably off sooner.

As a professional tuner, one of my main concerns is stability. Since ET is arguable more stable than UT, it is a more logical choice for the standard tuning.

Ryan, I totally agree.
However, one of the points of WT is that the harmony becomes closer to acoustically in tune as the home key is approached. That WT's become further from the commonly accepted ideals of melodic intonation as the home keys are approached is being conveniently ignored here for the time being.
The seemingly random nature of ET going out of tune would make it a mere UT.

I agree that the finer the tuning is of any temperament, the more almost constant attention to keep it there.

Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 02:18 AM

Peekay, I'm afraid the mathematics of this is quite beyond me.

When it comes to setting a standard for tuning a piano, are you saying that ET is unsuitable because it is not a musical tuning which corresponds to a naturally occurring harmonic series?

Are there any such series that could be used as a practical basis for piano tunings?
Posted by: pppat

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 08:51 PM

Hmm... regarding Ryan's post, my logic tells me that it should be that way. The wider M3's should make it prone to disaster, in case the humidity changes by chance happens to widen it even further.

But my personal experience is quite different, my UT tunings stay acceptable longer than my ET's during the challenging humidity sways. I can't explain this. Maybe they are pulling themselves back towards the ET that they have grown accustomed to earlier? In that case, I will start encouraging ET tunings, then I can come in and do the personal painting grin

Regarding choirs, solo singers, string quartets, orchestras and so on, they intonate to the harmony, of course. If a piano is included, then that's the given reference point, which other musicians succeed to a varying degree in intonating to.

If there is no fixed pitch, all the intervals will be intonated from a musical point of view, not from our compromise (=temperament). There will be 3rds that are wider and narrower than ET, and there will be some ET 3rds, too. They will actually be all over the place.

As Isaac says, there is definitely a tendency to brighten (=widen) major 3rds if the harmony calls for it, especially on dominants and secondary dominants, in order to make the half step up to the tonic as small as possible. On the other hand, it's quite normal to use a considerably narrower major 3rd (approaching just) on the tonic chord ending a cadence, for example.

rxd -> I like your forgotten perfect pitch at A=457! At the pace we are moving up in the rest of Europe (england is still largely 440, isn't it), soon you will be right on target smile
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/27/13 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: pppat
Hmm... regarding Ryan's post, my logic tells me that it should be that way. The wider M3's should make it prone to disaster, in case the humidity changes by chance happens to widen it even further.

But my personal experience is quite different, my UT tunings stay acceptable longer than my ET's during the challenging humidity sways. I can't explain this. Maybe they are pulling themselves back towards the ET that they have grown accustomed to earlier? In that case, I will start encouraging ET tunings, then I can come in and do the personal painting grin

Regarding choirs, solo singers, string quartets, orchestras and so on, they intonate to the harmony, of course. If a piano is included, then that's the given reference point, which other musicians succeed to a varying degree in intonating to.

If there is no fixed pitch, all the intervals will be intonated from a musical point of view, not from our compromise (=temperament). There will be 3rds that are wider and narrower than ET, and there will be some ET 3rds, too. They will actually be all over the place.

As Isaac says, there is definitely a tendency to brighten (=widen) major 3rds if the harmony calls for it, especially on dominants and secondary dominants, in order to make the half step up to the tonic as small as possible. On the other hand, it's quite normal to use a considerably narrower major 3rd (approaching just) on the tonic chord ending a cadence, for example.

rxd -> I like your forgotten perfect pitch at A=457! At the pace we are moving up in the rest of Europe (england is still largely 440, isn't it), soon you will be right on target smile


If anything, the real burning issue of the day is still pitch. it hasn't been about temperament for many generations. It is a real issue here. The International Proms series uses 3 x 9' pianos in the Royal Albert Hall that are kept at a nominal 440 with the usual slight upward variance for practical purposes, and another 3 at 442-3. With the expense of moving them in and out of off site storage every few days for visiting orchestras, this will easily double the cost of supplying pianos over the season. That is only the main venue, there are many others.

When British orchestras tour, there is a sentence in the contract that is more of a reminder of the pitch difference. Orchestral musicians here are far more practical in this matter, most of them having a very active and varied freelance life outside the orchestra.

455-6-7 was an accepted concert pitch here and in parts of America, certainly NY, until 1895. The original proms were funded by an impresario/singer and his Harley St. Throat doctor on condition they used 439 at 65 degrees F. The way had been prepared by the new philharmonic changing a few years before. The record shows that the musicians readily accepted it.
457 persisted in all levels of the British brass band tradition until the mid 1960's. That change was accompanied by much rancour but the major manufacturers of instruments simply ceased making them in two different pitches.

I mention all this in order to put this temperamental (sic) argument into some sort of perspective.

The vocal intonation issue. I used to have much experience of opera both in rehearsal and performance. I entertained the possibility that the resonances of the theatre may have been an influence because I noticed differences in singers intonation between rehearsals in an empty theatre and a full one. The difficulties in hearing the orchestra from the stage are well known.

The choir director on the international recordings and broadcasts of christmas music in the British cathedral tradition was known for his exageration of melodic intonation to the relatively inexperienced choirboys, His lay clerks used to sing an upward scale, jokingly, that went so wildly sharp on the first 3 notes that they had to go down a semitone for the 4th degree of the scale. Judging by his sterling recordings and broadcasts, his teaching method worked. I have had the pleasure of singing in the same tradition under the direction of his successor. All this also probably has much to do with cathedral acoustics.

There was much consternation that I have no direct experience of when organ builders started inventing their own temperaments, some of them are far to extreme for modern practical use. There is an otherwise fine organ in the hall that I am usually given to deliver my discussions on tuning that I use in F# for a couple of excrutiating measures and then play a sequence from Bach that goes through the keys in order to demonstrate how it gets more in tune as the mother key is approached.

I totally agree, Pat, the complexities of flexible pitch intonation, accompanied and unaccompanied cannot be reduced to any formula.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 12:20 AM

Rxd, do you know Andrew Sinclair, perchance?
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 01:43 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Rxd, do you know Andrew Sinclair, perchance?



Yes. I assume you mean the opera director/producer but for those who know him, there could only ever be one Andrew. He's the quintessential opera director that central casting would send.
Our paths used to converge often at the Dartington international opera, mainly, but I haven't seen him since that ceased to exist. I can still picture him now.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 02:04 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Rxd, do you know Andrew Sinclair, perchance?



Yes. I assume you mean the opera director/producer but for those who know him, there could only ever be one Andrew. He's the quintessential opera director that central casting would send.
Our paths used to converge often at the Dartington international opera, mainly, but I haven't seen him since that ceased to exist. I can still picture him now.


He's directed several operas I've been in here in San Diego. Yes, absolutely, there can only ever be one Andrew! laugh My first show with him was when we did the Covent Garden production of Lohengrin in 2000.



Me as a Teutonic knight...

He and I stay in touch on Facebook, when he's not here directing.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 04:28 AM

yesterday I tuned a vertical piano that have been delivered in june.

on the whole instrument I had to really turn 4 or 5 tuning pins (foot moved)

On the others I was under the impression I was working in fine tuning mode of a radio reciver or similar micrometric fine knob.

that was possible because it is easy for me to hear if a note is in the mood with others or no (base primarly on octaves but octaves serve to detection, other intervals confirm , with eventually 5th tuned directly)

I could not do that on an UT unless I where trained to recognize the level of distance from tempering of each interval.

In ET, the "map" of the tuning is easy to build.

Not an argument but my tunings are so stable that customers do not call me, only on recent pianos I experiment pitch corrections.

The context of course is moderate playing. Working for heavy handed and for intense playing mean something else but even in schools our work can be made easier a lot when stability is envisaged not only for unison but for the whole structure.

Some time ago I noticed as some (rare) old and experienced colleagues where obtaining very good tuning in schools, while the opposite is more the norm usually, and school pianos are really often approximate.

I had a good firm pin setting, did not had trouble in concerts with that, and did simply not imagine it could be made firmer.
I know today how that can be attained. goes better with ET. (sorry for the OT)
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Rxd, do you know Andrew Sinclair, perchance?



Yes. I assume you mean the opera director/producer but for those who know him, there could only ever be one Andrew. He's the quintessential opera director that central casting would send.
Our paths used to converge often at the Dartington international opera, mainly, but I haven't seen him since that ceased to exist. I can still picture him now.


He's directed several operas I've been in here in San Diego. Yes, absolutely, there can only ever be one Andrew! laugh My first show with him was when we did the Covent Garden production of Lohengrin in 2000.



Me as a Teutonic knight...

He and I stay in touch on Facebook, when he's not here directing.



All you need is one of Marty's zauberalpenhorns. (I knew there'd be a tie-in sooner or later)
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 09:12 AM

Didn't the Sandy Eggo Opera mount a production of The Magic Tuba?
Posted by: pppat

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 09:34 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd


All you need is one of Marty's zauberalpenhorns. (I knew there'd be a tie-in sooner or later)


grin
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 10:59 AM

Is not the thing he hold in left hand a sort of tuba?

OK may be just the pic is unclear,
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 11:03 AM

Isaac,

Think of Mozart and Sousa at the same time and you will understand.

It's a joke!
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 11:44 AM


Die Zauberflöte mit Sousaphon. Marking my calendar.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 02:07 PM

If you knew Sousa like I know Sousa
Oh. Oh. Oh what a gal.

Praps even more obscure.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 02:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Didn't the Sandy Eggo Opera mount a production of The Magic Tuba?


Oh yes, several times.

I am NOT posting the photo of me in costume for that one...



Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: bkw58

Die Zauberflöte mit Sousaphon. Marking my calendar.


Papageno's aria, accompanied by sousaphone...

Oy...
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 03:24 PM

Tee-Hee-Hee - I was in the audience.

Here's the basso tubaralis soloist:



And here's the chorus finale:

Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 06:49 PM

In WW1 they used huge ear trumpets just like that to listen for enemy aircraft before radar. Is that what he's using that Tuba for?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 06:54 PM

rxd - you must be hooked on Qi also!
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 07:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
rxd - you must be hooked on Qi also!


Yes. Is it on PBS? Those stations kept me in touch all the time I was living over there. There was a station here broadcasting "Prairie home Companion" but I can't seem to find it any more. That was always a reminder of Sunday afternoons in America either driving or sitting in the garden listening to the radio.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 07:28 PM

Well, actually Saturday afternoons for PHC. Lake Woebegone is fairly close to me.

Qi is found on YouTube and quickly posted after it airs on BBC. I'm enjoying the K series, as always.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 09/28/13 11:00 PM

Between repeats and different timings of the three PBS stations I could recieve PHC seemed to be available all weekend on one station or another. Like QI here, it's on one station in repeats twice most nights, sometimes a whole night of it.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/01/13 09:49 PM

There is already a Standard. It's A-440 and Equal Temperment. Other pitches and temperments are fun to play around with on your own time. But you are paid, as a technician to do the standard tuning!Enough said
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/01/13 10:38 PM

That might be all you get paid for, but I also get paid to make the piano a conduit for musical expression - which means for my clients, hardly ever placing strict ET on a piano. Oh, and depending on the frequency of tuning and the humidity in the room, I also get paid to float the pitch somewhere between 438 and 442 or so...


Ron Koval
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/01/13 11:36 PM

Ron, Exactly! I will float the pitch whichever way the customer wants and pays me to float it .(remember, the customer is always right, even when they're not)
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/01/13 11:48 PM

Floating the pitch does not work for me. More notes are at pitch than off. Admittedly, the climate is not harsh around here.
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/02/13 12:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Ron, Exactly! I will float the pitch whichever way the customer wants and pays me to float it .(remember, the customer is always right, even when they're not)

Tuners are not always right. Even when they think they are. The best ones often are. Even when they think they aren't. 'Nuff said. wink
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/02/13 01:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Cinnamonbear
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Ron, Exactly! I will float the pitch whichever way the customer wants and pays me to float it .(remember, the customer is always right, even when they're not)

Tuners are not always right. Even when they think they are. The best ones often are. Even when they think they aren't. 'Nuff said. wink



Ooooh. That's gonna leave a mark...

Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/03/13 09:15 PM

Opera, THE STADARD is a-440, and Equal Temperment. If a customer(usually this is one of those "smartest man in the room" types), insist I tune his paino to something LESS than the STANDARD, then I will give it my best shot. However the dude is going to pay out the rear for me to spend the extra time required to de-tune his piano
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/03/13 09:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Opera, THE STADARD is a-440, and Equal Temperment. If a customer(usually this is one of those "smartest man in the room" types), insist I tune his paino to something LESS than the STANDARD, then I will give it my best shot. However the dude is going to pay out the rear for me to spend the extra time required to de-tune his piano

Amazing - Congratulations for knowing that that there is a STADARD for paino and it is a-440. You have proven you know nothing about opera or temperament.

BTW - Haven't you been warned before about not listing your professional affiliation?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/03/13 09:29 PM

Also, is a-440 some strange way of indicating Ab?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/03/13 10:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Opera, THE STADARD is a-440, and Equal Temperment. If a customer(usually this is one of those "smartest man in the room" types), insist I tune his paino to something LESS than the STANDARD, then I will give it my best shot. However the dude is going to pay out the rear for me to spend the extra time required to de-tune his piano

Amazing - Congratulations for knowing that that there is a STADARD for paino and it is a-440. You have proven you know nothing about opera or temperament.


Well, there are certainly standards for spelling "STANDARD", "Temperament", and "piano"! smile
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/03/13 11:43 PM

Be a real Technician. Learn to tune by ear. Learn to set an Equal Temperment. And anything other than A440 is simply lame
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 12:09 AM

If you can't set a temperment by ear, you are a wannabe tuner. It's no more complicated than that
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 09:09 AM

Gary, that might have been the case a generation ago, but really isn't a reflection of reality in this time.

While there are those that learn something once and never see the need to expand, there are others that are eager to improve by finding things to learn and explore - - those are the real techs...

Ron Koval
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 10:14 AM

Oh yeah? Then what does that make me??? Huh??? wink
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 10:15 AM

Standards are dictated by the needs of the market. Markets vary. Markets change. Businesses that fail to recognize this and lead (or at least adapt) accordingly usually go belly-up.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 11:02 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Oh yeah? Then what does that make me??? Huh??? wink


That would make you a tech that believed his career was ended, only to try something new that allowed you to re-enter the biz!!

(or it might make you a bazootie-head, at this point, I'm not really sure... crazy )

Ron Koval
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 11:29 AM

I think there was a slight misunderstanding of who was addressing whom. I read Jim's reply to be addressed to Mr. Fowler. It can become confusing when the comment isn't specifically directed or a quote is included.

Standards seem to be flouted as Mr. Fowler refuses to acknowledge his professional affiliation in his signature line. As a pianist, I could make exactly the same statement. As far as learning from experience is concerned, he seems to not have yet learned the proper spelling of "temperament."
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
[...] Ooooh. That's gonna leave a mark... [...]


I doubt it, OpTen.

Here's a story: I have a friend who happens to be a real toughie of the bar fighting variety. He's mellowed a bit with age, but still... Truth be told, he has a very big, and very hard cranium. It is readily apparent, because he shaves his head. Anyway, being theater dads, we were working on building a set for a production. He was the boss. I was the painter. We were having an argument about color and pattern--it got pretty heated, but then, before it came to blows, I realized what I was up against. I said, "Even if I *could* hit you hard enough to ring your bell, I know it wouldn't make any difference." He smiled and said, "Your right."

Well, at least I was right about something.
Posted by: rysowers

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 01:45 PM

To Mr. Gary Fowler,

First of all, I can sympathize with your position: ET is the way to go in most cases, and is obviously the generally accepted standard in our industry. But you must realize that it is not so black and white. As Ron pointed out earlier, there is equal temperament and then there is EQUAL TEMPERAMENT.

Have you taken the Piano Technician Guild Tuning exam? If not, how do you know how accurate your temperament really is? Do you think you could score 100%? Very few people do. And even at 100% with the one cent tolerance it won't be an *EXACT* equal temperament.

Are your temperaments 100% accurate within a 1 cent tolerance? How about a .5 or even .2 tolerance? (I think anything beyond .2 cents is beyond normal human perception). Each technician decides how refined to make their ET based on experience, skill, and circumstances.

So we have to accept the fact that if ET is the target, we will always fall short of it to some degree. The good news is it doesn't really matter. What matters is that it *sounds* like equal temperament: gradually progressing 3rds, 6ths, and 10ths, 5ths that beat under one second, fourths that beat around one second, and pure sounding octaves.

As far as A440 being the ONLY pitch to tune for, you are simply not correct. Some professional orchestras ask for 441, 442, or even higher. Bosendorfer's standard is A=443. This quote is from their website: "The pianos are manufactured in the factory at a tuning pitch of A443 Hertz, however it may be altered between A440 Hertz and A445 Hertz according to need."

In regards to tuners who don't tune aurally being "wannabes" - that's harsh. Although I share your sentiment to some degree, there are some ETD tuners who do very well. I believe the ones who are successful do use some aural checks as part of their work. So maybe we can edit your statement to "technicians who only use an ETD and have no aural skills are wannabees! smile

There are some who will say any tuner who hasn't passed the PTG tuning exam is a wannabe. But we don't want to beat that dead horse again... tiki

I also encourage you to avoid sounding too much like a broken record on the forums. It can get tiring, and if anything it detracts from your argument. You sound like you are committed to quality work and have built a successful business. I hope we can continue to learn from your experiences.
Posted by: rysowers

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 01:51 PM

Here is another interesting discussion on pitch from a violin site:
http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=11273
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Oh yeah? Then what does that make me??? Huh??? wink


That would make you a tech that believed his career was ended, only to try something new that allowed you to re-enter the biz!!

(or it might make you a bazootie-head, at this point, I'm not really sure... crazy )

Ron Koval


Guilty as charged!
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 05:24 PM

The thing I believe is that people that cannot listen to intervals while tuning are talking of a so different thing that the discussion is useless.

Aint a question of ET or no, basically, but how that ET is tuned, how much enjoyeable it is when playing.

I can understand why aural tuners are so abrubt .

To make a perfect tuning with an EDT there ar refinements to be done. Most of the time the tuners do not make them, simply because it would be too costly.

The aural tuners can perceive what is wanted, tune it the best they can , and leave some mistakes orallow the piano to move somehow. The detection of an annoying interval is times fastr by ear, but the leeway is larger.

Then if one tune constantly with ETDs, he may even forget how the intervals are listened to, what is their ADN, how that feels. :


Numerous samples on videos of the result, sometime on recordings too.

Very often, the first octave is not musically enjoyable due to compromizing

ALso, knowing how to build a temperament allow to correct tunings very fast

Here is what was mean as ET in 1954

http://www.deezer.com/track/4109378
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/04/13 05:33 PM

Originally Posted By: rysowers
Here is another interesting discussion on pitch from a violin site:
http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=11273


That is interesting, with witnessing of many famous orchestras in US tuning to 442.

The best answer is that it gives a sharper tone to strings while not changing the winds volume, so the balance is better in favor of strings. Plausible.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Be a real Technician. Learn to tune by ear. Learn to set an Equal Temperment. And anything other than A440 is simply lame

My troll detector is beeping.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 05:34 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Be a real Technician. Learn to tune by ear. Learn to set an Equal Temperment. And anything other than A440 is simply lame

My troll detector is beeping.

Kees


No, if something is worth fighting for is real tuners learning to listen.
This is not because a less trained or not so much "pianistic" tuner will not obtain accepteable tunings with the help of ETD, way better than if he tune by ear without enough mastering.

But because this psuh the eventual tuners to a trap where their musical taste is modified in the end.

And loosing that part of the trade would be a real bad thing.

Sensitive tuners are more frequent today (my impression) in the part of the world I leave, because the training is better , things are better explained, but reducing tuning to the respect of even intervals and having that judged by a software, is a real mistake.

Reintroducing differences in intervals size without being able to judge those ones when tuning is also a big one.

It sound evident to me that the light WT sound better than the machine driven ET, more surprise for the ears, mistakes not so apparent, more "tension/release" effects, but the warmness of a good ET tuning done by a sensitive aural tuner contains all that yet, plus an equilibrium sensation that pianists like.

EDT tuners DO NOT check intervals, the machines do not allow that unless you stop notes recognizing features and you move the notes one by one yourself. (plus the "precision" is too much, the tuner must have trained ears and at some point the ETD agrees with them +-)

NO ETD can judge the "energy" or the "activity" of intervals.

They only can show that some partials are not lining. Do we want partials to line ? which ones ? on what string (strings differ in length often in the same unison and that on many pianos) How does it sound when all 3 strings are tuned together ? what is the interval activity at that point ?

After some time they purely stand by what the machine propose. Unless they took the time to refine the computed tuning and record it this is a generic thing, not human, not musical, and slightly uncomfortable for that reason !

Now that experienced / concert tuners have a machine in their tool box is less rare than one think. It may serve to put a tuning skeleton on pianos badly out of tune, help for pitch precision , and for other occasions.

But it is not the same that tuners that cannot gain enough confidence in themselves and stop trying.

Basically I humbly suggest that the pin and wire setting are difficult to learn and not properly explained (or explained in so different ways that the fundamentals are not clear to the tuner very often) Pianos reacting differently in different sections does not help to gain a method.

Lack of good samples to look at, lack of masters to show the apprentice, is a real problem.

Low level exigence from the audience is another.







Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 09:19 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Be a real Technician. Learn to tune by ear. Learn to set an Equal Temperment. And anything other than A440 is simply lame

My troll detector is beeping.

This particular poster is dropping hit-and-runs in the Piano Forum as well. Since he refuses to list any professional affiliation in his sig line, though he claims to be a tuner within his postings, I question his credibility also.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 09:25 AM


"Pride cometh before the fall"

I was rather proud of tuning exclusively aural. That is, until being humbled by an entire stage crew showing up late and during tuning time and with less than two hours till show time. Seeing my dilemma, the stage manager pulled a small electronic gizmo out of his case, the likes of which I'd never seen. "What's that?" I asked. "An electronic tuner," he replied. "How do you use it?" I asked. "Think I should call someone else?" he asked?

"Yeah."

It's best to learn both aural and ETD. You'll always have the other to fall back on.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 10:32 AM

Bob, OT, but I just noticed the link at the bottom of your sig. How long has this been around?
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 04:12 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Bob, OT, but I just noticed the link at the bottom of your sig. How long has this been around?


Thanks, Jim. The piano blog? 2011, I think.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 09:25 PM

I stated what my feelings were at the beginning of the topic.

I would be interested in hearing:

1. If there should not be a standard, why bothering tuning at all?
2. If there should be other standards, what should they be, and why?
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 10:27 PM

Bkw, make sure your fork is properly calibrated. Do that and if you tune Equal Temperment, you are GOLDEN
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 11:01 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB
I stated what my feelings were at the beginning of the topic.

I would be interested in hearing:

1. If there should not be a standard, why bothering tuning at all?
2. If there should be other standards, what should they be, and why?

Intonation is a totally different concept than temperament. Commonality is different than a standard.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 11:11 PM

Which means what, with respect to the original topic?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/05/13 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB
If there should not be a standard, why bothering tuning at all?

Surely you don't suggest throwing intonation out the window.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 12:28 AM

I said there were standards. Other people are still arguing about it. I do not understand why. I would like to.

You seem to understand what I am saying better than I understand what you are saying. It behooves you to explain yourself.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 10:11 AM

I think maybe it is the idea that if there is a standard, then everyone must conform that has cause some of the ruckus...

Is there a standard piano? Then every other piano is somehow less valued, or less useful.

Is there a standard dynamic range? No other piano should be produced that doesn't fit the standard...

Is there a standard voicing for a piano? Then if you don't make an effort to make every piano sound the same, you aren't a real tech...

Is there a standard touch for the piano? Again, anything outside of the "standard" isn't a piano...

Is there a standard size for a piano?
Is there a standard finish for a piano?

Aren't having more choices/flexibility a good thing for the consumer/musician/performer?

This discussion has pointed out how our industry has dictated to the consumer what is "good" for over a generation - taking the choice, and even the knowledge that there is a choice away from the people who are most effected by our work...

Ron Koval
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 11:04 AM

Originally Posted By: BDB
I said there were standards. Other people are still arguing about it. I do not understand why. I would like to.

You seem to understand what I am saying better than I understand what you are saying. It behooves you to explain yourself.


BDB,

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm confused by your statement as I indicated in bold typeface. At the beginning of this thread you stated your premise:

"I have stated before that there are two standards: Just intonation and equal temperament. These exist by their very nature. Other temperaments are defined by them. The number of beats is the variation from just intonation. The number of cents is the variation from equal temperament."

I'm not so sure that Equal Temperament exists by "its very nature," however. It is an imposed tuning system based on mathematics and theory derivative of our twelve tone system. The introduction of thirds followed the established system of Plain Song or Chant, which is based on octaves, fourths, and fifths. Of course, that terminology didn't evolve until after the implementation of the twelve tone scale and only applies to western music. The study of the evolution of Polyphony is a very complex subject and came well before temperament came into the picture. The milestone, of course, is the Well Temperament. Even that term is now used differently that is was in the Baroque era.

I was surprised when you suggested tossing out intonation, or tuning, at all. This thread seems to suggest that ET should be the "Standard." Even that term is problematic. ET is probably the most prevalent, but should the term be codified as a "standard?" That brings us back to the very premise of this thread.

For tuners of fixed pitch instruments, I doubt there will ever be a consensus of opinion. This is due to the fact that other instrumentalists and vocalists are not dedicated to ET as a "standard." Since a non fixed pitch instrumentalist or a vocalist does not naturally "hear" in ET, and temperament is totally different perception than intonation, this difference will continue.

A tuner is taught to listen for a totally different structure than is a vocalist or instrumentalist (non-fixed pitch).

Behoovingly,
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty

A tuner is taught to listen for a totally different structure than is a vocalist or instrumentalist (non-fixed pitch).

Behoovingly,


As a vocalist - who has been lauded for his intonation (just sayin') - and primarily aural tuner, I don't know if i can sign on to this notion.

Maybe I'm just oblivious to what I do... wink
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 02:12 PM

Hi Jim,

When you are singing are you thinking about partials, cents, inharmonicity, and stretch? Or, does your ear sense overtones to create a pleasing blend within accurate intonation?

Can you state that whenever you are singing, you are singing in ET? Does your intonation match the 'common whole' or do you only hear in ET?

I am using ET as absolute in its definition. Even in this, many of the tuners admitted that they vary from ET, but still define it as ET. Terminology becomes a major issue between tuners and performers. Did your formal training in voice precede your training as a tuner? Was the term 'overtone' or 'harmonic' more familiar than 'partial?'

Take, for instance, the term voicing. To a pianist, that is the relative volume control within a chord, and the phrasing from chord to chord. What a tuner/tech referrers to as voicing, a pianist would call tone regulation or adjustment. Context of any given term is very important and often there is error in the 'translation.'

I'm not trying to be a grump, I'm only attempting to offer another viewpoint. I've used a lot of 'either-or questions,' but in reality, it is even more complex and not cut and dried at all.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 04:01 PM

Equal temperament can be derived from the existence of octaves and fifths or other intervals, without reference to anything other than a single note, just as with just intonation. In that sense, I claim that it exists by its very nature.

It differs from just intonation in that just intonation depends on that single note being more important tonally than any other. That single note is arbitrary for just intonation. Any single note is arbitrary for equal temperament.

That is the sense in which I believe these two temperaments to exist by their very nature, and why they are standards. That, and because, as I said, everything else is defined by them.

Are there any other temperaments which could qualify as a standard by similar criteria? I think not.

Whether or not you can tune something exactly to equal temperament is not germane to the discussion. The objections brought up apply equally to just intonation and any other temperament that one can imagine.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 04:09 PM

Dear Grump ( laugh ),

You may use "absolute ET," but I think just about everyone here has conceded that is the goal, not the reality. But while some of us are talking about variations of several cents, others of us - me, for instance, are talking about more subtle variations, i.e., adjusting ET to the idiosyncrasies of a particular instrument (i.e., less than that).

I know that our rehearsal pianos are tuned in ET, and that I am almost an outlier from the group in my ability to match what I hear to the sound I make. I also know that I can hear in the ensemble where the intervals lie with regard to temperament. Given that, when we sing (I'm referring to the opera here), we must be singing in ET, because we match our pitch reference. I would hear the difference.

One disclaimer: Some here already know that I have drug-induced tinnitus; my ears have been ringing since 1992, when I was given gentamicin for a life-threatening infection (I had MRSA before it was cool). After that, I thought I would never tune again, until Ron Koval showed me a different method (listening for the "sweet spot" in the fundamental, as opposed to the highest audible coinciding partial). It has worked wonders, and has made me a better tuner than I was using the conventional method (I now have a string of customers six years long who can attest to that). I also thought at the time that it might have killed my career as a singer, but it didn't. Some people think I've overcompensated, because my pitch is so exacting any more when I sing. I've also been used as a wall between a bad singer and the rest of the section, because I can apparently hear selectively well enough to sing through the bad pitch reference at my side.

One area where the tinnitus is not a factor is in tuning intervals, since that involves the lowest coinciding partial.

My training as a tuner preceded my formal vocal training, FWIW. I apprenticed a rebuilder when I was 16-17. I referred to them as partials long before i heard the term harmonic or overtone.

Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 05:10 PM

Jim, you are indeed the exception.

Do you find a shift in temperament, in the entire ensemble, when you shift from the rehearsal piano to the rehearsals with orchestra?
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 06:03 PM


Nice thread, thank you All. a.c.
.
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?

Did this question relate to a standard for tuning pianos, or to all musical instruments and ensembles including choirs?

Was the standard meant to be a theoretical or a practical one?
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 09:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Jim, you are indeed the exception.

Do you find a shift in temperament, in the entire ensemble, when you shift from the rehearsal piano to the rehearsals with orchestra?


Yes, but it's a blend with the orchestra, not necessarily just intonation. Keep in mind, this is the Sandy Eggo Symphony we're talking about... wink
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 09:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?

Did this question relate to a standard for tuning pianos, or to all musical instruments and ensembles including choirs?

Was the standard meant to be a theoretical or a practical one?


It was meant to pertain to piano tuning, as a general rule.
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 09:51 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB
Equal temperament can be derived from the existence of octaves and fifths or other intervals, without reference to anything other than a single note, just as with just intonation. In that sense, I claim that it exists by its very nature.

It differs from just intonation in that just intonation depends on that single note being more important tonally than any other. That single note is arbitrary for just intonation. Any single note is arbitrary for equal temperament.

That is the sense in which I believe these two temperaments to exist by their very nature, and why they are standards. That, and because, as I said, everything else is defined by them.

Are there any other temperaments which could qualify as a standard by similar criteria? I think not.

Whether or not you can tune something exactly to equal temperament is not germane to the discussion. The objections brought up apply equally to just intonation and any other temperament that one can imagine.


BDB, I believe you have nailed it. Nicely done, and nicely expressed! (I truly mean that!) thumb Everything else is in between.

I guess the thing is, due to all of the other parameters (which are, practically, infinite! grin ), how much in between one or the other does one have to be to make it sound good? wink
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 10:03 PM

Just intonation is not a temperament, it is an intonation method that can not be implemented on a standard keyboard instrument.

Kees
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 10:15 PM

Kees, I agree.

And ET is not "natural," as it is a mathematical imposition on the western historic twelve note scale. Had history been different, we might very well have a 9 note scale within an octave. We are "naturally" very short on "pure" or "just" intervals. I know of only two.
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 10:29 PM

Kees and Marty--

Do you mean that there is nothing to be in between?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 10:40 PM

True, just intonation is not a temperament, but it is a both method of and a standard for tuning the notes within an octave. I have used the term for lack of anything better.

It certainly can be implemented on a standard keyboard, at least to the extent of available notes.

The fact that twelve fifths are very close to seven octaves, and is the only close-ratio interval which when repeated comes close to any small number of octaves is a mathematical and physical fact.

Frankly, these are tiny quibbles which only serve to impede discussion. As I have asked, if you have other standards, explain what they are and why they should be standards.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/06/13 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Kees, I agree.

And ET is not "natural," as it is a mathematical imposition on the western historic twelve note scale. Had history been different, we might very well have a 9 note scale within an octave. We are "naturally" very short on "pure" or "just" intervals. I know of only two.


Well, the earliest keyboards had just 8 notes per octave; our current "white keys" and the Bb. This is still reflected in the German note names CDEFGABH for what we call CDEFGABbB.

Tuning standard at time was Pythagorean (11 pure 5ths) leading to a larger than ET M3 which sounds good melodically but not harmonically, but the M3 was a dissonant then so it didn't matter.

From renaissance to early baroque the standard was 1/4' meantone and esp. in Italy keyboards with split raised keys (eg one for Ab and one for G#) were quite common. Such a keyboard can be found now at the Stanford organ which has one manual with split keys. It has extra pipes and a big lever which allows you to switch from 1/5' meantone to a 1/5' well temperament on the other manuals. (1/4' would have been better was Gustav Leonhardt's comment when he played the instrument.)

Anyways 1/4' MT was the "standard" though some people were lame enough not to abide by it, for example Monteverdi.

Mid-late baroque music no longer fits on 1/4' MT and requires a well temperament, but if there was a standard or what it was is unknown. In contemporary early music circles Werckmeister 3 is almost a standard, but some performers choose their own temperament from the huge amount of historical ones that have been published, or cook up their own for the music at hand.

What happened after that I don't know, but clearly the standard for the last century has been ET, which does not mean there is no room for non-standard tunings.

Apart from standards, ET has been invented a very long time ago (3000 years ago in China it I remember correctly) and has been suggested by baroque writers like Werkmeister, Rameau, Neidhardt and undoubtedly others I don't know about. If it was used is unknown, but if not it was certainly not because they were to dumb to tune it.

At the risk of rambling on in the same manner that irritates me when others do it here, let me share that I regularly play through Bach's 48 on my piano which is tuned in a 1/6' well temperament that I like, but I avoid the remote keys such as D# minor by transposing it down to D minor (easy to do: just pretend there are no sharps but a b in the key signature). If I do play it in D# it sounds noticeably worse to me with all those wide M3's.

I don't know what Bach's point was writing in D# minor but to me it sounds better in a WT in D minor so that's how I play it. I don't have my piano in ET because to it sounds better in a WT in D minor than in ET in D# minor.

If I was somehow forced to play the 48 all in the original keys on the piano I'd choose ET. On the harpsichord on the other hand I'd take 10 min breaks between pieces and change the temperament.

And of course, on the clavichord one can play in just intonation by adjusting your key pressure. I don't have the skills to do it, but it is possible.

Kees
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 12:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Kees, I agree.

And ET is not "natural," as it is a mathematical imposition on the western historic twelve note scale. Had history been different, we might very well have a 9 note scale within an octave. We are "naturally" very short on "pure" or "just" intervals. I know of only two.


Since I always refer to ET as either a series of compromises, or a stack of lies, I agree, ET is hardly "natural."
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 02:50 AM

Whether equal temperament is "natural" or not differs from whether it exists from its very nature.

Whether you can play a clavichord in just intonation by adjusting key pressure depends on the initial tuning and the amount that one can bend the tone. Additional pressure will only raise the pitch, so you cannot take a wide interval and change the upper note to suit.

Then there is the question of how well you can match pitches. I suspect that most people would not be able to get closer to a perfect fifth in a musical passage than an equal temperament fifth on a decently tuned piano is.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 07:01 AM

Sure, ET is a compilation of lies, a compromise, a force fit, etc, as are all temperaments. Some temperaments are a series of little white lies that, sooner or later, need to be covered up by a few real whoppers that anybody can see through.

I agree with Kees entirely , I also firmly believe that early musicians would retune their more conveniently tuneable keyboard instruments between pieces when necessary.

We are taught in basic music history that harpsichords were so unstable that they had to be tuned between pieces. The stability thing is as it may be but I also believe that one or two notes in each octave, register and on each keyboard would be retuned in order to form a temperament more suitable for the next piece. Doing this most likely also had an influence on the program order.

When I had a harpsichord at home, I made up my own temperaments for everything I wanted to play, I don't think I ever slavishly copied a prescribed temperament except for study and I sense that the musicians of old didn't either. Many temperaments only differ, in essence, by one or two notes and can be changed in a minute or two (less on a simpler instrument) without entire retuning.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By: BDB

Then there is the question of how well you can match pitches. I suspect that most people would not be able to get closer to a perfect fifth in a musical passage than an equal temperament fifth on a decently tuned piano is.


Greetings,
I suspect that most people wouldn't get anywhere near as close other than by sheer luck. That ET fifth is effectively pure to the majority of ears. Techs do a pretty good job at guessing, but musicians? String players? I have never found anyone that could tell me even if it was wide or narrow. I have played a C on the piano and asked players to give me an F below. Interesting results, and NOBODY is consistently as close as an ET fifth. Their first stab is usually the closest, and then they get progressively worse as they attempt to intellectually locate the pitches.

Occasionally, a player will lock in and give me a pure fifth, but when you ask them to flatten it by a cent, you see the pitch drop 10 or 15 cents, then begin to come back up, then stop,then wander around, and within about 45 seconds, their objectivity begins to disappear and they begin getting frustrated.

Regards,
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 10:32 AM

Ed and Kees,

I agree with your comments and both illustrate some very important concepts. Thank you.

Ed, your example really points out how differently an artist level performer "hears" intonation than does a skilled tuner. It's almost as if the skill is developed from diametrically opposed directions to arrive at a given result. The result, however, fits into the puzzle of intonation for a very different purpose.

The trained musician thinks of intonation as harmonic, and within the ever-changing landscape of composition and performance. From this thread, and many others in this forum, I deduce that a highly skilled tuner thinks of intonation as intervallic, based on the limitation of a fixed pitch instrument. In other words, what we listen for is different.

There is neither right nor wrong. This thread, has gone past the usual temperament spats, into the philosophy of intonation, rather than the nuts and bolts of tuning. We are well past a clean unison. That is a given for all involved. The door swings wide as soon as the interval of a fifth is introduced. Is it "pure" or is it "tempered?"

That's when discussion is interesting. When dissonance is resolved to consonance, understanding is achieved. Dominant 7th to Tonic. Both are essential to arrive at 'Ahh."
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 06:38 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?


Hi,

Now that I have quoted the OP, I would like to add my 2 cents.

..."Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning;..."...

Nope, I do not think it is a "...Should...", but a "can", : Can we accept a universal standard of tuning? And for me the answer is yes, if it sounds harmonious to tuners and pianists?

..."..;something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?"...

Well, if the standard was "failsafe" to the point that "all musicians can ultimately rely" on it, why not?

..."..I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers."...

Neither am I talking about "private home", but tuners and pro-international musicians.

What I do not understand, Opera Tenor, is your original intention and perhaps, in turn, you can answer my question: would you be willing to accept a universal standard of tuning? What would you require?

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 07:06 PM

Alfredo, my original intent was to address something the techs here have been arguing about for years, but never facing, seemingly. Every few months , an ET vs. UT thread would get started, everyone would argue and hurl insults at the other side, someone leaves in a huff, and nothing is ever ultimately agreed upon. But it seemed to me that the one question which was never asked in all of it was, "If you don't accept ET as an industry standard, which UT would be its replacement?" I.e., if a tech is going to tune in UT(s), which one does he/she use when in doubt? What's the fallback, since a given UT doesn't satisfy *every* musical situation equitably? Sure, ET isn't as rich-sounding as most UT's, but at least it's equally so... wink
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
... Sure, ET isn't as rich-sounding as most UT's, but at least it's equally so... wink


Even that is a matter of taste. I find that the major thirds which are most commonly used in what are considered the "good" keys for some temperaments rather dull compared to equal temperament. (Note that I said that was a matter of taste.) I find it odd that some people might think that thirds which are not as wide are richer, particularly when they or others talk about how octaves need to be stretched for brilliance.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 08:40 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
... Sure, ET isn't as rich-sounding as most UT's, but at least it's equally so... wink


Even that is a matter of taste. I find that the major thirds which are most commonly used in what are considered the "good" keys for some temperaments rather dull compared to equal temperament. (Note that I said that was a matter of taste.) I find it odd that some people might think that thirds which are not as wide are richer, particularly when they or others talk about how octaves need to be stretched for brilliance.


I know, but I'm trying to be a little conciliatory here...

wink
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 09:11 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
But it seemed to me that the one question which was never asked in all of it was, "If you don't accept ET as an industry standard, which UT would be its replacement?" I.e., if a tech is going to tune in UT(s), which one does he/she use when in doubt? What's the fallback, since a given UT doesn't satisfy *every* musical situation equitably?


I'd say definitely a modern Victorian well temperament.. Bremmer's EBVT or Coleman's 10.. argue around there. Traditional equal temperament has such a dominant place in music, that going too far from that tree as a 'standard' would be too much for modern music and the instrument itself.

The piano has co-evolved around 12-TET. The twelve notes (as Kees was saying) weren't always there. Having 12 tones to the octave is literally integral to employing ET. There is no other suitable solutions besides 5, 7, 12, 17 and 19-TET in a range under 20 octave divisions. Of those, 12 is almost a 7-limit ET and offers the best consonance for the most important intervals with a manageable number of notes.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 09:35 PM

But the 12 tones were there long before equal temperament came into common use.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 09:45 PM

I have it on the highest authority that the 12 tone scale specifically evolved to complete the prophecy of the Wholey Equal Temperament.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 10:19 PM

It's hard to throw away the A-440 fork at this point and tune whatever jack arse temperment some pianist thinks he's entitled to.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 10:34 PM

All the recording artists have been using The Standard(a440/Equal Temperment)since the 70s(and earlier). Get used to it already
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 10:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
All the recording artists have been using The Standard(a440/Equal Temperment)since the 70s(and earlier). Get used to it already

All?
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/07/13 10:44 PM

marty, if your own piano tuner will kss you butt, and answer to your every whim, my hats off to ya
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 12:00 AM

The immediacy of intonation as practiced by players of flexible pitch instruments was touched on in briefly earlier in this thread.

Many of the ideas amd imaginations that I read here about how orchestral musicians play in tune with each other are based on the inherent pedantry of piano tuners. (quick to point out thal all professions have their pedantries, some even freely and proudly calling themselves pedagogues).

A piano will hold still while it is being tuned, the intonation of an orchestra or other musical combination is a constantly moving thing and must be caught "on the fly".

Musicians 'know' where every note is on their instrument and each and every time a note is played, an immediate often unconscious adjustment is made to the relative balance, tone colour, general blend and pitch. Not only conforming to the pitch of the other musicians at that instant, but the pitch of that same note played, possibly by another instrument, maybe in a different octave a few seconds earlier.

How big are those intervals? It depends on where the melody and harmony has been and where it is going, both in the individual part and the ensemble. There are cultural/ national variations, I find. Even the way four quarter notes are divided varies enormously between an American concert band and a Bavarian beerkeller band.

All this and more takes place the very instant a musician goes from one note to the next. It has to be instantaneous and unnoticeable to the listener. This simply has to be intuitive. Jim spoke of some who can compensate for inadequacies of other musicians without disturbing the texture and this is true but a sensitive ensemble can be totally ruined by one insensitive player.

Some of this can be more apparent when a group of musicians get together for the first time.

There are myriad other aspects of playing a musical instrument in ensemble that must be considered. The intricate timings of simply playing together in the same style takes years of experience and constant vigilance. Some of the best musicians are those who can do all this whole reading new music for the first time. Soloists spend hours perfecting a concerto to the last detail. They have almost total freedom to play how they choose to interpret it but, unless there is infinite rehearsal time, (but not enough so that the music loses its spontaneity), the soloists still have to bend to the intonation of the accompanying unit who often cannot hear the soloist.

Give us time to think about it and the magic disappears. It is unfair to ask a musician to match a pitch to an evanescent pitch source like the piano and then ask them to change it by one cent when they get it right. I know precisely what one cent is, but as a musician myself, I know it doesn't work that way in the real world. Musicians don't judge intonation in terms of cents as tuners do with their fixed intonation.
It reminds me of a conversation with a student conductor who was trying to tell me how he "insists" on Pythagorean intonation from musicians. I had to ask him what, precisely did he mean by that. Of course he only had some vague notion so I thought it prudent to advise him to drop it lest he become the pretentious twerp he would be instantly dismissed as by any self respecting musician. Musicians love to ask pointed questions of that nature sometimes, in order to put pretentious twerp conductors (and there are many) and researchers in their place.

All this, of course comes from years of practice and experience. to imagine there is a simple solution, like a prescribed temperament of some sort that all musicians commit to memory is appallingly innocent.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 12:42 AM

You're right, RXD, the vast majority of musicians don't even know what is meant by "cent."

Just like some of my fellow singers who claim to have perfect pitch, then walk over to the piano to prove their point. :hysteric:
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
All the recording artists have been using The Standard(a440/Equal Temperment)since the 70s(and earlier). Get used to it already

All?

Don't feed the troll.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 02:57 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
The immediacy of intonation as practiced by players of flexible pitch instruments was touched on in briefly earlier in this thread.

Many of the ideas amd imaginations that I read here about how orchestral musicians play in tune with each other are based on the inherent pedantry of piano tuners. (quick to point out thal all professions have their pedantries, some even freely and proudly calling themselves pedagogues).

A piano will hold still while it is being tuned, the intonation of an orchestra or other musical combination is a constantly moving thing and must be caught "on the fly".

Musicians 'know' where every note is on their instrument and each and every time a note is played, an immediate often unconscious adjustment is made to the relative balance, tone colour, general blend and pitch. Not only conforming to the pitch of the other musicians at that instant, but the pitch of that same note played, possibly by another instrument, maybe in a different octave a few seconds earlier.

How big are those intervals? It depends on where the melody and harmony has been and where it is going, both in the individual part and the ensemble. There are cultural/ national variations, I find. Even the way four quarter notes are divided varies enormously between an American concert band and a Bavarian beerkeller band.

All this and more takes place the very instant a musician goes from one note to the next. It has to be instantaneous and unnoticeable to the listener. This simply has to be intuitive. Jim spoke of some who can compensate for inadequacies of other musicians without disturbing the texture and this is true but a sensitive ensemble can be totally ruined by one insensitive player.

Some of this can be more apparent when a group of musicians get together for the first time.

There are myriad other aspects of playing a musical instrument in ensemble that must be considered. The intricate timings of simply playing together in the same style takes years of experience and constant vigilance. Some of the best musicians are those who can do all this whole reading new music for the first time. Soloists spend hours perfecting a concerto to the last detail. They have almost total freedom to play how they choose to interpret it but, unless there is infinite rehearsal time, (but not enough so that the music loses its spontaneity), the soloists still have to bend to the intonation of the accompanying unit who often cannot hear the soloist.

Give us time to think about it and the magic disappears. It is unfair to ask a musician to match a pitch to an evanescent pitch source like the piano and then ask them to change it by one cent when they get it right. I know precisely what one cent is, but as a musician myself, I know it doesn't work that way in the real world. Musicians don't judge intonation in terms of cents as tuners do with their fixed intonation.
It reminds me of a conversation with a student conductor who was trying to tell me how he "insists" on Pythagorean intonation from musicians. I had to ask him what, precisely did he mean by that. Of course he only had some vague notion so I thought it prudent to advise him to drop it lest he become the pretentious twerp he would be instantly dismissed as by any self respecting musician. Musicians love to ask pointed questions of that nature sometimes, in order to put pretentious twerp conductors (and there are many) and researchers in their place.

All this, of course comes from years of practice and experience. to imagine there is a simple solution, like a prescribed temperament of some sort that all musicians commit to memory is appallingly innocent.


+1

That said, "justness " is nevertheless learned based on a piano tuning . Something particularely imprecise , and even more when it comes to an electronic piano.

I believe that piano tuners also judge their work as the orchestra musician. Does it sound "tuned", or no.

Judging by partial matching or even progression is just a base IMO.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 07:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
It's hard to throw away the A-440 fork at this point and tune whatever jack arse temperment some pianist thinks he's entitled to.


And exactly what does a tuning fork have to do with temperament? Don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't know the difference between a pitch standard and temperament.

Actually, what we got here appears to be, sadly, to be another case of dead credibility.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 08:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: rxd
The immediacy of intonation as practiced by players of flexible pitch instruments was touched on in briefly earlier in this thread.

Many of the ideas amd imaginations that I read here about how orchestral musicians play in tune with each other are based on the inherent pedantry of piano tuners. (quick to point out thal all professions have their pedantries, some even freely and proudly calling themselves pedagogues).

A piano will hold still while it is being tuned, the intonation of an orchestra or other musical combination is a constantly moving thing and must be caught "on the fly".

Musicians 'know' where every note is on their instrument and each and every time a note is played, an immediate often unconscious adjustment is made to the relative balance, tone colour, general blend and pitch. Not only conforming to the pitch of the other musicians at that instant, but the pitch of that same note played, possibly by another instrument, maybe in a different octave a few seconds earlier.

How big are those intervals? It depends on where the melody and harmony has been and where it is going, both in the individual part and the ensemble. There are cultural/ national variations, I find. Even the way four quarter notes are divided varies enormously between an American concert band and a Bavarian beerkeller band.

All this and more takes place the very instant a musician goes from one note to the next. It has to be instantaneous and unnoticeable to the listener. This simply has to be intuitive. Jim spoke of some who can compensate for inadequacies of other musicians without disturbing the texture and this is true but a sensitive ensemble can be totally ruined by one insensitive player.

Some of this can be more apparent when a group of musicians get together for the first time.

There are myriad other aspects of playing a musical instrument in ensemble that must be considered. The intricate timings of simply playing together in the same style takes years of experience and constant vigilance. Some of the best musicians are those who can do all this whole reading new music for the first time. Soloists spend hours perfecting a concerto to the last detail. They have almost total freedom to play how they choose to interpret it but, unless there is infinite rehearsal time, (but not enough so that the music loses its spontaneity), the soloists still have to bend to the intonation of the accompanying unit who often cannot hear the soloist.

Give us time to think about it and the magic disappears. It is unfair to ask a musician to match a pitch to an evanescent pitch source like the piano and then ask them to change it by one cent when they get it right. I know precisely what one cent is, but as a musician myself, I know it doesn't work that way in the real world. Musicians don't judge intonation in terms of cents as tuners do with their fixed intonation.
It reminds me of a conversation with a student conductor who was trying to tell me how he "insists" on Pythagorean intonation from musicians. I had to ask him what, precisely did he mean by that. Of course he only had some vague notion so I thought it prudent to advise him to drop it lest he become the pretentious twerp he would be instantly dismissed as by any self respecting musician. Musicians love to ask pointed questions of that nature sometimes, in order to put pretentious twerp conductors (and there are many) and researchers in their place.

All this, of course comes from years of practice and experience. to imagine there is a simple solution, like a prescribed temperament of some sort that all musicians commit to memory is appallingly innocent.


+1

That said, "justness " is nevertheless learned based on a piano tuning . Something particularely imprecise , and even more when it comes to an electronic piano.
...
...



Something lost in translation again?
Justness learned by whom based on a piano tuning?

My personal experience did not include playing with a piano in the mix until I had been playing 10-11 years. By then, I was learning to play the piano but never played another instrument with the piano. It was that very unjustness of piano sound that led me to explore tuning further.

I really don't think that an understanding of piano tuning has helped in the practical application of playing a flexible pitch instrument any better in tune than before I knew anything about temperaments. The self same situations continued to present themselves and the same way of playing as an ensemble didn't change. It was all still spur of the moment flexibility.

Five brass players in a brass quintet will play a chord in a totally different intonation and style than five brass players playing the same chord in a circus band or a soul band or as background for a solo singer or an oratorio chorus. I knew this well before I knew what was just or not. Intonation is closely tied in with style. Playing with a relaxed tone colour will be accompanied by it's naturally relaxed intonation. I know how to achieve it, technically, but I rarely mention intonation when I am coaching small brass ensembles, because I never need to. It happens naturally with more sensitive brass players when I suggest changes in tone colour. If I made a point of it, I could destroy what's already in place and finish up with a self conscious performance.

Knowledge of temperaments doesn't help the right here, right now-ness of a living ensemble playing in tune.

Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 08:43 AM

I mean lecture, notes recognizing, control of singed just, is traditionally done at the piano.

I would not say it make really interval learning as I am unsure I would sing "tempered" but when I was singing in choral ensemble I was considered as singing correctly, and I trained mostly at the piano.

Now I heard also lot of orchestral music live or at the radio, I even played triangle (then piano! ) in one. At those times I never heard of concerns about piano tuning, not as much r as I hear today among tuners (musicians seem to go along, adapt and eventually complain if the piano moves/drift)
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 08:48 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
But it seemed to me that the one question which was never asked in all of it was, "If you don't accept ET as an industry standard, which UT would be its replacement?" I.e., if a tech is going to tune in UT(s), which one does he/she use when in doubt?

I'd say this question needs some rephrasing because there are many possible ways of dividing the octave into twelve intervals that are not all equal to each other.

Which UTs should a liberal minded tuner offer, and why?
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 08:49 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
Bkw, make sure your fork is properly calibrated. Do that and if you tune Equal Temperment, you are GOLDEN


A440 + ET = Golden? I'll buy that. Calibrating fork? On cold mornings, I just sip hot coffee and breathe on it. While less-than-scientific for our ETD colleagues, I think it works just fine. No complaints from customers either - especially when I have some extra java in tow. wink
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 09:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
marty, if your own piano tuner will kss you butt, and answer to your every whim, my hats off to ya

And you know who my tech is? Butt kissing is not required, but he certainly is capable of tuning to temperaments other that ET. Fine tuners, rather than hacks, certainly have mastered the necessary skills and are comfortable with such a minimal request. After all, it is the owner of the piano which provides your income.

Actually, my three pianos are in three different residences. Non of the three tuner/techs has any problem understanding, and executing, a non-ET.

Even through the request from one of the global moderators to include your professional status in your signature line has been posted publically, you refuse to do so. That ignored requirement, and the way you address others, divests you of any credibility, whatsoever.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 10:13 AM

Some food for thought:

Last year I was invited by an established string quartet to join them in a series of performances of the Schumann Op 44 Quintet. We had never collaborated before. The first rehearsal was held at my home and they all commented how easy it was to play with the tuning on my piano. It was referred to as "harmonically correct." The word temperament was never used but the piano had just received a fresh tuning in EBVT-III.

This was from a very well regarded and professional quartet who are known for their impeccable intonation.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
But it seemed to me that the one question which was never asked in all of it was, "If you don't accept ET as an industry standard, which UT would be its replacement?" I.e., if a tech is going to tune in UT(s), which one does he/she use when in doubt?

I'd say this question needs some rephrasing because there are many possible ways of dividing the octave into twelve intervals that are not all equal to each other.

Which UTs should a liberal minded tuner offer, and why?


Perhaps. I'm not talking about carrying around a palette of different tunings for customers to choose from. I'm talking about which UT would be the single temperament to set as a standard.
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
But it seemed to me that the one question which was never asked in all of it was, "If you don't accept ET as an industry standard, which UT would be its replacement?" I.e., if a tech is going to tune in UT(s), which one does he/she use when in doubt?

I'd say this question needs some rephrasing because there are many possible ways of dividing the octave into twelve intervals that are not all equal to each other.

Which UTs should a liberal minded tuner offer, and why?


Perhaps. I'm not talking about carrying around a palette of different tunings for customers to choose from. I'm talking about which UT would be the single temperament to set as a standard.

Jim,

I may be missing your agenda but one possibility is to adopt a mild well temperament like the one Ed Foote proposed to me a few months ago. That could then be a springboard to other UTs.

Perhaps Ed and the other advocates would comment on having a "plain vanilla" UT as a standard base.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 10:56 AM

Wouldn't a "plain vanilla" UT be ET? Especially since it's been argued by proponents of UT's that no one really tunes ET?



Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 11:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
marty, if your own piano tuner will kss you butt, and answer to your every whim, my hats off to ya


(o moderator, where art thou?)
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 11:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Withindale


Perhaps. I'm not talking about carrying around a palette of different tunings for customers to choose from. I'm talking about which UT would be the single temperament to set as a standard.

Jim,

I may be missing your agenda but one possibility is to adopt a mild well temperament like the one Ed Foote proposed to me a few months ago. That could then be a springboard to other UTs.

Perhaps Ed and the other advocates would comment on having a "plain vanilla" UT as a standard base.
[/quote]

Greetings,
If we were talking about plumbing, or building airplanes, or writing civil code that everyone must obey, standards would be good and necessary. But when we talk about intonation and pitch, we are talking about art. Artists usually prefer to be given as wide a range of expression as possible, and there is no one standard tuning that does this for everything. We can talk about how much compromise do we want, i.e. the refusal to compromise purity for freedom that meantone offers vs. the ET demand that compromise be exactly even across all keys. Picking a "standard" will never be possible; having a default, simple. The effective use of the "other" tunings requires greater knowledge on the tuner's part, so there is a reason to avoid them.

However, tuning ET for simplicity exacts its own costs. It homogenizes modulations, rendering them no more that changes in pitch, leaving it to our intellectual understanding to furnish the meaning to create emotional responses. Our involuntary response systems are not being yanked around by changes in dissonance. To some, this is a comfort. To others, sterile and unfulfilling.

Leaving this safe environment can be perilous to those that don't understand what happens when you add harmonic values. Chronological coupling of the temperament and composition can get us really close, since all the WT's are basically the same progression, differing in how roughly the sizes of the thirds progress around the circle, and how much distance there is between the most consonant and dissonant of them. Bach seems to have accounted for the 21 cent thirds found in keys like C# and F# on the temperaments of his day, Beethoven seems to have known how to use a Young temperament to create tension without harshness, and Brahms or Schubert's or Schumann's music does well in tunings with a milder form, but still with sufficient contrast to give harmonic direction to the modulations.

As far as ET goes, if no third is as large or larger than the one immediately above, and no third is as small or smaller than the one below, there will be no musician that can tell it is not a perfect tuning. Tuners will, but we don't listen musically, and there can be a lot of errors left in a temperament that will never be discerned in the music. To worry that departing will cause problems with other instruments doesn't seem to be supported by my experience, and there have been numerous times a string player commented on how much easier it was to play "in tune" with a WT piano. I am not alone in this experience, either.
Regards,
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 02:07 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Wouldn't a "plain vanilla" UT be ET?

Yes, it would. In Sicily you'll find umpteen ice cream parlours with amazing trays of ice cream in a variety of wonderful flavours; each one different from the rest. There's one where all the trays contain exquisite vanilla; I hear it's very popular because it goes well with everything.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Quote:


Perhaps. I'm not talking about carrying around a palette of different tunings for customers to choose from. I'm talking about which UT would be the single temperament to set as a standard.

Jim,

I may be missing your agenda but one possibility is to adopt a mild well temperament like the one Ed Foote proposed to me a few months ago. That could then be a springboard to other UTs.

Perhaps Ed and the other advocates would comment on having a "plain vanilla" UT as a standard base.


Greetings,
If we were talking about plumbing, or building airplanes, or writing civil code that everyone must obey, standards would be good and necessary. But when we talk about intonation and pitch, we are talking about art. Artists usually prefer to be given as wide a range of expression as possible, and there is no one standard tuning that does this for everything. We can talk about how much compromise do we want, i.e. the refusal to compromise purity for freedom that meantone offers vs. the ET demand that compromise be exactly even across all keys. Picking a "standard" will never be possible; having a default, simple. The effective use of the "other" tunings requires greater knowledge on the tuner's part, so there is a reason to avoid them.

However, tuning ET for simplicity exacts its own costs. It homogenizes modulations, rendering them no more that changes in pitch, leaving it to our intellectual understanding to furnish the meaning to create emotional responses. Our involuntary response systems are not being yanked around by changes in dissonance. To some, this is a comfort. To others, sterile and unfulfilling.

Leaving this safe environment can be perilous to those that don't understand what happens when you add harmonic values. Chronological coupling of the temperament and composition can get us really close, since all the WT's are basically the same progression, differing in how roughly the sizes of the thirds progress around the circle, and how much distance there is between the most consonant and dissonant of them. Bach seems to have accounted for the 21 cent thirds found in keys like C# and F# on the temperaments of his day, Beethoven seems to have known how to use a Young temperament to create tension without harshness, and Brahms or Schubert's or Schumann's music does well in tunings with a milder form, but still with sufficient contrast to give harmonic direction to the modulations.

As far as ET goes, if no third is as large or larger than the one immediately above, and no third is as small or smaller than the one below, there will be no musician that can tell it is not a perfect tuning. Tuners will, but we don't listen musically, and there can be a lot of errors left in a temperament that will never be discerned in the music. To worry that departing will cause problems with other instruments doesn't seem to be supported by my experience, and there have been numerous times a string player commented on how much easier it was to play "in tune" with a WT piano. I am not alone in this experience, either.
Regards,


I get what you're saying, but that still does't answer the original question.

Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 02:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Wouldn't a "plain vanilla" UT be ET?

Yes, it would. In Sicily you'll find umpteen ice cream parlours with amazing trays of ice cream in a variety of wonderful flavours; each one different from the rest. There's one where all the trays contain exquisite vanilla; I hear it's very popular because it goes well with everything.


Okay, you got me there...

laugh
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 03:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote
Originally Posted By: Withindale


Perhaps. I'm not talking about carrying around a palette of different tunings for customers to choose from. I'm talking about which UT would be the single temperament to set as a standard.

Jim,

I may be missing your agenda but one possibility is to adopt a mild well temperament like the one Ed Foote proposed to me a few months ago. That could then be a springboard to other UTs.

Perhaps Ed and the other advocates would comment on having a "plain vanilla" UT as a standard base.


Hi Ed,

This has to be a quick reply as I am supposed to get dinner ready :-), I apologize for spelling and other inconveniences and will write in between your lines.

..."Greetings,
If we were talking about plumbing, or building airplanes, or writing civil code that everyone must obey, standards would be good and necessary. But when we talk about intonation and pitch, we are talking about art."...

I am not sure at all. Good intonation is given by nature, or learned throughout hard study; art is altogether a different issue, although both art and tune-intonation require skill, dedication and other qualities. Imo, there is no need to refer to art in order to do the most consciencious and beautiful tuning.

..."Artists usually prefer to be given as wide a range of expression as possible, and there is no one standard tuning that does this for everything."...

Some Musicians need "intonation", some others "express" themselves one way or the other.

..."We can talk about how much compromise do we want, i.e. the refusal to compromise purity for freedom that meantone offers vs. the ET demand that compromise be exactly even across all keys."...

As mentioned, your concept of ET is a simplification, but you are fully justified... since 12-root-of-two, simply, has never been used... it is a lame theory, not even good as a compromise.

..."Picking a "standard" will never be possible; having a default, simple. The effective use of the "other" tunings requires greater knowledge on the tuner's part, so there is a reason to avoid them."...

Do you really think that? I look forward to hear your tunings, be it UT or ET.

..."However, tuning ET for simplicity exacts its own costs. It homogenizes modulations, rendering them no more that changes in pitch, leaving it to our intellectual understanding to furnish the meaning to create emotional responses. Our involuntary response systems are not being yanked around by changes in dissonance. To some, this is a comfort. To others, sterile and unfulfilling."...

My words were not enough for you, Ed, to demonstrate how wird your believe is, other Colleagues may read more on this on the "Historical ET and Modern ET" thread.

..."Leaving this safe environment can be perilous to those that don't understand what happens when you add harmonic values. Chronological coupling of the temperament and composition can get us really close, since all the WT's are basically the same progression, differing in how roughly the sizes of the thirds progress around the circle, and how much distance there is between the most consonant and dissonant of them."...

It is not only a question of thirds, Ed, the question was and is about all intervals, even beyond the octave (!!) and chord hierarchy, that may tell you why a musician does not like being pushed around with variable beat-tensions, that is when their expression would be messed up.

..."Bach seems to have accounted for the 21 cent thirds found in keys like C# and F# on the temperaments of his day, Beethoven seems to have known how to use a Young temperament to create tension without harshness, and Brahms or Schubert's or Schumann's music does well in tunings with a milder form, but still with sufficient contrast to give harmonic direction to the modulations."...

And you talk about "contrast" and "harmonic direction"... I call that out-of-tune and harmonic misleading.

..."As far as ET goes, if no third is as large or larger than the one immediately above, and no third is as small or smaller than the one below, there will be no musician that can tell it is not a perfect tuning."...

I am not that sure, I would talk about "few", yes, perhaps few musicians will appreciate the difference you mention, perhaps that is how you have confused quasi-ET (read UT) with ET.

..."Tuners will, but we don't listen musically, and there can be a lot of errors left in a temperament that will never be discerned in the music."...

I have always "listened" musically and looked for no errors; if anything, one "error" is considering only 12 notes (the usual temperament), instead of the whole keyboard, be it theory or practice.

..."To worry that departing will cause problems with other instruments doesn't seem to be supported by my experience, and there have been numerous times a string player commented on how much easier it was to play "in tune" with a WT piano."...

Best, that proves that your tunings are good, at least for the musician you have met, but it is far from demonstrating that you know what a modern (aural) ET is about.

Regards, a.c.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 05:18 PM


I wrote:
..."Picking a "standard" will never be possible; having a default, simple. The effective use of the "other" tunings requires greater knowledge on the tuner's part, so there is a reason to avoid them."...

alfredo capurso writes:
Do you really think that? I look forward to hear your tunings, be it UT or ET.

..."However, tuning ET for simplicity exacts its own costs. It homogenizes modulations, rendering them no more that changes in pitch, leaving it to our intellectual understanding to furnish the meaning to create emotional responses. Our involuntary response systems are not being yanked around by changes in dissonance. To some, this is a comfort. To others, sterile and unfulfilling."...

My words were not enough for you, Ed, to demonstrate how wird your believe is, other Colleagues may read more on this on the "Historical ET and Modern ET" thread.

..."To worry that departing will cause problems with other instruments doesn't seem to be supported by my experience, and there have been numerous times a string player commented on how much easier it was to play "in tune" with a WT piano."...

Best, that proves that your tunings are good, at least for the musician you have met, but it is far from demonstrating that you know what a modern (aural) ET is about.
Regards, a.c.[/quote]

Greetings,

I never got questioned about my aural tuning. I think I was formally trained by the best, and spent most of my career working in professional musical situations. I have been allowed to microscopically examine the tunings of some of the finest tuners on the planet, and had them examine mine the same way. I have stretched and compressed, tuned by 12th, etc. If you have a magical answer to highly tempered thirds everywhere in an equal temperament, I would love to hear it, but all the synchronicity, beat cancelling, stretching and octave reinforcement that can be used doesn't erase the sameness. Like I said, some people are comforted by this, and your response seems to indicate you are one of them. What do you do with the dissonance that Bach obviously uses, like in his organ scores,( Toccata in D??). I don't think that blare of minor 2nds and everything else is unmusical, I hear it as a necessary precursor to the passage that follows. Dissonance is not bad, it is a musical quality. I maintain that a piano is capable of more than one harmonic texture,and that there is more musical value in a tuning that offers a variety of harmonic sounds.

My tunings are available. I have two CD's online (Katahn at CDbaby). There is a free version of a Mozart fantasie in a WT on the "Six Degrees" site, listen away! or you could perhaps find one of the millions of CD's by the country artists I have tuned ET for.

I am going to assume you meant "weird". That is fine with me. If following my own esthetic sense appears weird to another, it isn't my problem. I am comfortable with my direction, and I know of many others that share it. Inre the forums, what I am saying is that I've got people paying good money for these tunings, I am here just trying to explain why that is.
Regards,
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 05:59 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 06:13 PM

Hi Ed,

I went to the Six Degrees site in search of the Mozart and couldn't locate it. I'd love to hear it.

Could you provide a link or identify the CD it is from?

Thanks!
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote

I wrote:
..."Picking a "standard" will never be possible; having a default, simple. The effective use of the "other" tunings requires greater knowledge on the tuner's part, so there is a reason to avoid them."...

alfredo capurso writes:
Do you really think that? I look forward to hear your tunings, be it UT or ET.

..."However, tuning ET for simplicity exacts its own costs. It homogenizes modulations, rendering them no more that changes in pitch, leaving it to our intellectual understanding to furnish the meaning to create emotional responses. Our involuntary response systems are not being yanked around by changes in dissonance. To some, this is a comfort. To others, sterile and unfulfilling."...

My words were not enough for you, Ed, to demonstrate how wird your believe is, other Colleagues may read more on this on the "Historical ET and Modern ET" thread.

..."To worry that departing will cause problems with other instruments doesn't seem to be supported by my experience, and there have been numerous times a string player commented on how much easier it was to play "in tune" with a WT piano."...

Best, that proves that your tunings are good, at least for the musician you have met, but it is far from demonstrating that you know what a modern (aural) ET is about.
Regards, a.c.


Greetings,

I never got questioned about my aural tuning. I think I was formally trained by the best, and spent most of my career working in professional musical situations. I have been allowed to microscopically examine the tunings of some of the finest tuners on the planet, and had them examine mine the same way. I have stretched and compressed, tuned by 12th, etc. If you have a magical answer to highly tempered thirds everywhere in an equal temperament, I would love to hear it, but all the synchronicity, beat cancelling, stretching and octave reinforcement that can be used doesn't erase the sameness. Like I said, some people are comforted by this, and your response seems to indicate you are one of them. What do you do with the dissonance that Bach obviously uses, like in his organ scores,( Toccata in D??). I don't think that blare of minor 2nds and everything else is unmusical, I hear it as a necessary precursor to the passage that follows. Dissonance is not bad, it is a musical quality. I maintain that a piano is capable of more than one harmonic texture,and that there is more musical value in a tuning that offers a variety of harmonic sounds.

My tunings are available. I have two CD's online (Katahn at CDbaby). There is a free version of a Mozart fantasie in a WT on the "Six Degrees" site, listen away! or you could perhaps find one of the millions of CD's by the country artists I have tuned ET for.

I am going to assume you meant "weird". That is fine with me. If following my own esthetic sense appears weird to another, it isn't my problem. I am comfortable with my direction, and I know of many others that share it. Inre the forums, what I am saying is that I've got people paying good money for these tunings, I am here just trying to explain why that is.
Regards,
[/quote]

Thanks for your reply, Ed, I am pretty tired (after a hard day) but I will try to post my reply.

..."I never got questioned about my aural tuning."...

Yes, I believe you.

..."I think I was formally trained by the best, and spent most of my career working in professional musical situations."...

Yep.

..."...I have been allowed to microscopically examine the tunings of some of the finest tuners on the planet, and had them examine mine the same way."...

Yes, I hope you understand that here we get into relativity.

..."...I have stretched and compressed, tuned by 12th, etc."...

Hmmm... your "etc." leaves a too large leeway.

..."...If you have a magical answer to highly tempered thirds everywhere in an equal temperament, I would love to hear it, but all the synchronicity, beat cancelling, stretching and octave reinforcement that can be used doesn't erase the sameness."...

I too look forward to meeting you sometime, all would be easier and (I'm sure) more enjoyable.

..."...Like I said, some people are comforted by this, and your response seems to indicate you are one of them."...

I indicate that.. if we talk about intonation, "thirds" (only - on their own) do not represent an issue.

..."...What do you do with the dissonance that Bach obviously uses, like in his organ scores,( Toccata in D??). I don't think that blare of minor 2nds and everything else is unmusical, I hear it as a necessary precursor to the passage that follows. Dissonance is not bad, it is a musical quality."...

Here I would agree (I think I told you before), "Dissonance is not bad", so much so that minor 2nds (nor other intervals that sound "dissonant") do not need to be "more dissonant", just for the sake of making dissonance more... dissonant.

..."I maintain that a piano is capable of more than one harmonic texture,and that there is more musical value in a tuning that offers a variety of harmonic sounds."...

Perhaps I shoud have cut that sentence in half, 'cos it might be true.. "...a piano is capable of more than one harmonic texture..", but here we may swim into the Harmonic Ocean, where everything can be "harmonic"; no, better we stick to "intonation" and how we can share that feeling.

..."My tunings are available. I have two CD's online (Katahn at CDbaby). There is a free version of a Mozart fantasie in a WT on the "Six Degrees" site, listen away! or you could perhaps find one of the millions of CD's by the country artists I have tuned ET for."...

Thank you, I will try to get the links.

..."I am going to assume you meant "weird"."...

Yes, sorry.

..."That is fine with me. If following my own esthetic sense appears weird to another, it isn't my problem. I am comfortable with my direction, and I know of many others that share it. Inre the forums, what I am saying is that I've got people paying good money for these tunings, I am here just trying to explain why that is."

I thought we were talking about temperaments and intonation, not monay... as you see I cannot even spell that word. :-)

Sincere regards, a.c.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Here I would agree (I think I told you before), "Dissonance is not bad", so much so that minor 2nds (nor other intervals that sound "dissonant") do not need to be "more dissonant", just for the sake of making dissonance more... dissonant.

However, that is exactly what musicians do in practice. I have never heard of any codified dissonance chart, but a musician is taught to pull (lead) a 7th to the tonic or resolution (consonant). In effect, making the dissonance more dissonant.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Here I would agree (I think I told you before), "Dissonance is not bad", so much so that minor 2nds (nor other intervals that sound "dissonant") do not need to be "more dissonant", just for the sake of making dissonance more... dissonant.

However, that is exactly what musicians do in practice. I have never heard of any codified dissonance chart, but a musician is taught to pull (lead) a 7th to the tonic or resolution (consonant). In effect, making the dissonance more dissonant.


Exactly MM, a musician would not like that passage to be "milder" nor over-contrasted, depending on the key (or the tuning)... this is what I mean by chord hierarchy.
.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/08/13 10:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Hi Ed,

I went to the Six Degrees site in search of the Mozart and couldn't locate it. I'd love to hear it.

Could you provide a link or identify the CD it is from?

Thanks!


Yes, go to CDbaby and type in the artist's name, which is Enid Katahn. It will show both of our well-tempered CD's. track 12 on the "Six Degrees" recording is a free track. (I am trying to figure out how to make all three of the comparison tracks free before I announce this on the forums with its own posting). The full liner notes are on another web site, but the Beethoven notes are all there. (Warning: long.)

I should have put a warning up there not to listen to the Pathetique before hearing some other, milder compositions, since the amount of tempering I used for that sonata was, while not wolfish, as extreme as I think people can tolerate. The middle Ab mvt. is backed up with a full 21 cents in the harmony. If that doesn't get one thinking about graveyards, I don't know what will.
Regards,
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/09/13 03:20 AM

I assure that there is a standard, and it is well known and recognized by pianists.

They may even ask for another tuning if the piano does not sound as expected.

And that standard is carefully learned and worked, and bullet proof tuning too.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/09/13 06:18 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.


I think Ron was being humorous, Alfredo.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/09/13 09:08 AM

Thanks Ed,

I went to the "Six Degrees" site, rather than "CDbaby." I'll give it a listen.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/14/13 06:56 PM


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?






Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.
Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.


I think Ron was being humorous, Alfredo.



Yes, rxd, perhaps you are right but... did you find that humorous? Hmmm..., this is also why I would like to meet you, you could help me get the right feeling, when it comes to anglophony (not sure this word existed). :-)

Anyway, what I hear there... is a sort of rejection for something (a standard) that may be a threat for aural tuners "variations", making tuners obliged to work on the basis of "calculation".

Aural techs would have to "learn how to tune all over again", and the others may well dump their favorite ETD... yes, how humorous... :-)

And we, now trainers... could "...train all the piano players..." and, very humorous, "don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning...."...

Yes, now I find all that somehow humorous but, I don't know, do you too hear some iH? :-)
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/16/13 07:45 PM


...snowflakes...

Before this thread melts, I would like to add a few words.

Ron wrote: ..."Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.
Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle"...

Firstly, a standard does not necessarely need to be "electronic", meaning that "aural tuning" variations don't call for a "non-aural" standard; "variations" - if anything - call for arguments, and even the best argument would have to pass a test based on intonation and, as far as I am concerned, on logics.

Yes, a standard is meant to be the same all over, as it indicates the most convenient solution, any other messy tuning being available there, at hand.

Aural tuners do not need to "...run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again...", as they can already control the tuning lever and beats, IMO they only need to be willing to share the standard; and ETD tuners could test and set their favorite ETD, have The standard available together with any other setting, at their convenience.

And there would be no point in training "..piano players to only expect.." one kind of tuning, because it would still depend on the execution, and because the "piano player" (and not only the piano player) is ready and happy to appreciate a better "..sounding way of tuning", say... The standard.

Alfredo
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 02:12 AM

There has been a standard for a very long time. Just ask the PTG.

As much as I know, it is ET.

Why?

Just ask those in the PTG who are higher up the ladder than those who are in the PTG that post here on a regular basis.

I suppose it may have something to do with, that there is no better standard.

Is it not very interesting that the PTG uses ET to evaluate one and at the same time it's members poo poo it.

It is like saying, this is the standard you must have in order to drive a car and once you have attained to it, whatever you do, just never drive according to that standard ever again. You idiot!

This sounds like a house divided and hypocrisy at its best.

But then again, all the shouting does come from a very small quarter that pretends to be a force to be reckoned with.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 04:00 AM

Chris, there are also people that never learned to tune aurally, that way they miss something they are not even aware of.

Then strategies develop to be expert in something else. That is human.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 05:28 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?






Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.
Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.


I think Ron was being humorous, Alfredo.



Yes, rxd, perhaps you are right but... did you find that humorous? Hmmm..., this is also why I would like to meet you, you could help me get the right feeling, when it comes to anglophony (not sure this word existed). :-)

Anyway, what I hear there... is a sort of rejection for something (a standard) that may be a threat for aural tuners "variations", making tuners obliged to work on the basis of "calculation".

Aural techs would have to "learn how to tune all over again", and the others may well dump their favorite ETD... yes, how humorous... :-)

And we, now trainers... could "...train all the piano players..." and, very humorous, "don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning...."...

Yes, now I find all that somehow humorous but, I don't know, do you too hear some iH? :-)



One great thing about the Internet is that we can all choose the extent to which we interact with it.

Alfredo,

There are many kinds of humour. I perceived Rons' post to have an element of what we call "tongue in cheek" humour.

For you to pedantically and methodically rummage through it looking for a belly laugh in each sentence I find kinda funny too.

Now, let's hear a big belly laugh from all the men with big bellies............ and now a little titter from...,,
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
There has been a standard for a very long time. Just ask the PTG.
As much as I know, it is ET.
Why?
Just ask those in the PTG who are higher up the ladder than those who are in the PTG that post here on a regular basis.
I suppose it may have something to do with, that there is no better standard.
Is it not very interesting that the PTG uses ET to evaluate one and at the same time it's members poo poo it.
It is like saying, this is the standard you must have in order to drive a car and once you have attained to it, whatever you do, just never drive according to that standard ever again. You idiot!
This sounds like a house divided and hypocrisy at its best.
But then again, all the shouting does come from a very small quarter that pretends to be a force to be reckoned with.


Greetings,
The PTG uses ET as a benchmark. It is the standard because it is the most easily measured by objective means. It is very much like the barber college using a "regular man's haircut" as a standard to be met before graduating. There are those for whom that is enough,and they find enough customers that are willing to pay for the standard. I remember barbers, before they became "stylists", who denigrated all the more modern, longer, styles. They gradually changed to follow the money, or got left behind, all the while clinging to their "standard" and finding fault with the world for not standing still for them. I know a watch repairman who became bitter at the electronic watch makers, accusing them of throwing "quality" out the window.

The hacked, aural, ET's of the average tuner in the 20th century, at least the ones I examined, were farther from ET than a carefully tuned Victorian temperament. The advent of the machines, and the upgraded PTG tests, are keeping those hack tuners out of the organization. Yes, there are members that are certified as RPT but still do poor work, but the largest percent of low quality work I have seen has been done by non-members.

As far as the PTG embracing a standard that members reject, this is not hypocrisy, it is an organization demonstrating flexibility. We don't demand that tuners tune a certain way, we demand that they demonstrate that they can accurately tune the simplest, commercially feasible, temperament. Every RPT(excepting some older, constantly fewer, members that were grandfathered), has shown to his peers that they can tune within a defined window of accuracy. ET is the perfect target for this, disallowing taste and personal preference. That is why it is used, not because of any esthetic considerations.

It is really easy to find fault with an organization from outside, but impossible to make any changes for the better from there. It is more difficult to pass the standards to join, and work to change it from within, but that is what many of us do. I will always question the motives given by people for not joining a professional trade organization, particularly when it is the only peer review that is available to us, and it is by peer review that we make the most improvement in our work.
If a tech believes that they are going to attain mastery of the craft working on their own, they are dreaming. The sum total of experience available to any PTG member is so far greater than what we can expose ourselves to on our own, that the game is rigged against the independent from the get-go.
In our chapter, the associates know that they will begin to get referrals from me and others when they are RPT's. If a tech can't pass such simple, basic, tests, I am not going to risk my name and reputation( which is worth something), referring customers to them. It doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a temperament is used.
Regards,
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 09:02 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.
Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?



Ok, back to the beginning. I think that because there is such a wide variation of aural tuning, the only standard should be a electronic tuning device calculation... After all, if having a standard is so important, then shouldn't it be the same all over? OnlyPure software is the only one that I know of that doesn't allow for user input to alter stretch, so that's probably the best bet to determine the standard - no way to mess with the calculation.

Ok, now all you aural techs can go run out and buy the software and learn how to tune all over again. The rest of us can dump our favorite ETD; we can train all the piano players to only expect an OnlyPure tuning - don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning.... whistle

Ron Koval


Hi Ron,

Your post sounds a bit contorted, are you ok? The point is not a "software that doesn't allow to alter stretch", one point (perhaps) is there where you say "... a better sounding way of tuning".

I haven't tested Stopper's device, but I would certainly be able to say if it is worth... my own "intonation" standard.
.


I think Ron was being humorous, Alfredo.



Yes, rxd, perhaps you are right but... did you find that humorous? Hmmm..., this is also why I would like to meet you, you could help me get the right feeling, when it comes to anglophony (not sure this word existed). :-)

Anyway, what I hear there... is a sort of rejection for something (a standard) that may be a threat for aural tuners "variations", making tuners obliged to work on the basis of "calculation".

Aural techs would have to "learn how to tune all over again", and the others may well dump their favorite ETD... yes, how humorous... :-)

And we, now trainers... could "...train all the piano players..." and, very humorous, "don't even try to suggest that there might be a better sounding way of tuning...."...

Yes, now I find all that somehow humorous but, I don't know, do you too hear some iH? :-)



One great thing about the Internet is that we can all choose the extent to which we interact with it.

Alfredo,

There are many kinds of humour. I perceived Rons' post to have an element of what we call "tongue in cheek" humour.

For you to pedantically and methodically rummage through it looking for a belly laugh in each sentence I find kinda funny too.

Now, let's hear a big belly laugh from all the men with big bellies............ and now a little titter from...,,


rxd,

Enjoy interacting, no probs, and If I need an Editor I will let you know. Here I hope we talk about piano tuning and standard.

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 02:43 PM

Thanks for your reply Ed.

You are one of a few people that I appreciate in the "piano technology world", and I also do believe that you are someone who has attained to a high level of expertise too.

However there is much in your reply that I do not agree with.

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote


Greetings,
The PTG uses ET as a benchmark. It is the standard because it is the most easily measured by objective means.


So you are admitting that ET it is a good standard to have because it is objective?

You have opened my eyes to the well temperament scenario now! It is subjective. Nice world to live in. Room for a lot of errors and on top of that one can get away with an inferior tuning and call it well!

How does one begin to measure what is not easily measurable and subjective?

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote

The hacked, aural, ET's of the average tuner in the 20th century, at least the ones I examined, were farther from ET than a carefully tuned Victorian temperament. The advent of the machines, and the upgraded PTG tests, are keeping those hack tuners out of the organization. Yes, there are members that are certified as RPT but still do poor work, but the largest percent of low quality work I have seen has been done by non-members.


Yes, I hear you, but let's be honest with each other, we know that there are chancers out there and they are not tuners. We also know that there are folks who are not apart of the PTG, willingly so, and who are high end tuner techs.

The problem is this ego thing of some PTG members in that that they do as you are doing now, lumping all those tuners who are not apart of the PTG in to the same lump as "the hack tuners". This is a generalistion that is unecessary and you folks should know better than to employ such tactics.

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote

As far as the PTG embracing a standard that members reject, this is not hypocrisy, it is an organization demonstrating flexibility. We don't demand that tuners tune a certain way, we demand that they demonstrate that they can accurately tune the simplest, commercially feasible, temperament. Every RPT(excepting some older, constantly fewer, members that were grandfathered), has shown to his peers that they can tune within a defined window of accuracy. ET is the perfect target for this, disallowing taste and personal preference. That is why it is used, not because of any esthetic considerations.

So, what I am getting from your post so far and the above quote, is this, 1. ET is the most easily measured temperament by objective means, 2. That HT's are purely subjective and not easily measured, and, 3. That HT is a personal preferance and taste.

It is all very well to harp on reverse well, but what I still have not heard from the HT proponents is, when you folks do get your temperament wrong, tuning some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you not say?

There is a thundering silence on this. I suppose all is well!

Let's just keep ETD's out of this for the moment.

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote

It is really easy to find fault with an organization from outside, but impossible to make any changes for the better from there. It is more difficult to pass the standards to join, and work to change it from within, but that is what many of us do. I will always question the motives given by people for not joining a professional trade organization, particularly when it is the only peer review that is available to us, and it is by peer review that we make the most improvement in our work.
If a tech believes that they are going to attain mastery of the craft working on their own, they are dreaming. The sum total of experience available to any PTG member is so far greater than what we can expose ourselves to on our own, that the game is rigged against the independent from the get-go.
In our chapter, the associates know that they will begin to get referrals from me and others when they are RPT's. If a tech can't pass such simple, basic, tests, I am not going to risk my name and reputation( which is worth something), referring customers to them. It doesn't have anything to do with what kind of a temperament is used.
Regards,


I hear you, but this is also very subjective and narrow?

I know, without a doubt, that there are many, many people out there in the world, doctors, lawyers, tuners, etc.. even an American president, even a South African president, who have cheated, and have not earned their way, but, "have got into the Orginisation".

Once again, there are many people out there in the world who are self taught and extremely brilliant and capable in their field. One does not need an orginisation, however, being in one can have it's benefits, I am sure.

I for one, do not need an orginisation to survive.

Regards,
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 02:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote

The PTG uses ET as a benchmark. It is the standard because it is the most easily measured by objective means...

...we demand that they demonstrate that they can accurately tune the simplest, commercially feasible, temperament. Every RPT(excepting some older, constantly fewer, members that were grandfathered), has shown to his peers that they can tune within a defined window of accuracy. ET is the perfect target for this, disallowing taste and personal preference. That is why it is used, not because of any esthetic considerations.



Now, let me get this right, on the one hand ET is supposed to be so difficult to tune and on the other, it is easy?

So which one is it folks?
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 03:00 PM

Warning! Many insurgents may try to use their AK47's on this F22A Raptor!

I found the following in the PTG journal, August 1988, written by Rick Baldassin,

"There were a couple of letters this month in response to the June issue. The first was from Robert Bays, of Atlanta, GA. Robert writes:

"I enjoyed reading your article on "Setting the Temperament” in the June Journal. I was interested to note that for many years now I have been following a procedure similar to (but at the same time very different from) yours and Don Foli’s. For all pianos except those which must have equal temperament for one reason or another, I use the Marpurg "I" temperament, which I tune by setting up the chain of thirds F3-A3-C#4-F4, then tuning perfect fifths and fourths from them.

I am sure you are well acquainted with the Marpurg, which ends up with a series of lovely equal-tempered Major Thirds. Except for those based on F#, A#, and D, all minor triads have equal beating major and minor thirds. The only discordant fifths and fourths are F# -C#, F-A# -F, and A-D. I have had excellent results with this temperament, having never had a complaint, and having had a number of special compliments..."


Thank you for your letter. I became acquainted with the Marpurg “I” temperament when I was a student in piano technology school. In school, we began by first learning to tune unisons, then various pure intervals, and finally various temperaments. Before we learned equal temperament, we were taught several other temperaments, such as mean-tone, Well Temperament, and the Marpurg “I” temperament. These were taught to us more as learning tools than for their historical significance, though this was not overlooked.

My teacher, Merrill Cox, felt that it would be easier for us at first to tune temperaments which had several pure intervals. Once we had learned to tune unisons without beats, we could train ourselves to hear intervals without beats. The mean-tone temperaments served well for this. Once we had mastered the mean-tone temperaments, we moved on to the Well Temperament, which was similar to the mean-tone temperaments, but introduced the concept of “tempering” intervals so that the instrument could be played in all of the keys, unlike the mean-tone temperaments.

The Marpurg “I” temperament was one which was studied as we neared our study of equal temperament, as it displayed the concept of tempering of Major Thirds.

Finally, we learned equal temperament which included tempering of all the intervals. In my daily practice, I have call only to tune in equal temperament, so I am not as familiar with several of the historical temperaments as others may be. I do recall that as unequal temperaments go, the Marpurg “I” is fairly close to equal temperament. We probably have all tuned it by accident while attempting equal temperament."
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 03:43 PM

http://www.bruceduffie.com/mohr.html

Piano Technician Franz Mohr

A Conversation with Bruce Duffie

BD: Does it bother you when you see a technician, or someone trying to tune a piano, who is using a little electronic strobe?

FM: [Becoming a bit agitated] Oh, absolutely! Absolutely! I go quite mad, although many, many use it. There’s nothing wrong with the machine itself. The machine is perfect, but to translate what the machine tells you into the practical tuning is an entirely different story. Unless you learn to use your hearing — which comes in combination with your touch, with your feeling in your fingers, the touch of the tuning hammer — unless it comes through hearing into the tuning hammer to set the tuning pin, you will never, ever get this kind of tuning into a piano.

BD: Why?

FM: Because the machine may tell you exactly if the pitch is right. It’s right on, so you take your tuning hammer off from that tuning pin and you go to the next tuning pin. But it’s already out because you have never really set it. Looking at that machine might improve your eyesight, but certainly not your hearing because you rely on your eyes and not on your hearing. When I check somebody out to see if he has hearing for tuning, what I usually do is let him tune unison to see if he hears octaves and if he can put a unison in where one string is out. You immediately can see that.

BD: But you’ve got to be listening in equal temperament. You can’t be listening in perfect intervals.

FM: You cannot tune any interval pure, not a fifth or fourth. You cannot do it. You have to temper. That’s why we call it temperament! It has to fit in through the whole scale, through the whole circle of fifths. We know about historic temperaments and all this. They’re all very nice to know about, but they do not work for our modern piano.

BD: Would you tune differently if the concert was just the Goldberg Variations, as opposed to an all-modern program of Schoenberg and Webern?

FM: No I wouldn’t, nor have I ever been requested to tune any different temperament! Never, ever!
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 04:04 PM

To many of the greatest pianists of our time, one man was critically important: Franz Mohr, former Chief Concert Technician of Steinway & Sons for more than a quarter of a century...

And he only tuned ET!
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 04:38 PM

I agree with Ed Foote on this.

Alfredo, I'm glad that you desire to delineate what creates a great ET mathematically with your CHAS approach. However, it seems your only motive is to sell your approach and inject this into every thread that might, even peripherally, accept it.

I don't think a 'standard' needs to be made beyond what already is. In fact, it shouldn't. Ed delineated clearly how standard ET is used in the PTG to act as a test that can be clearly defined and tuned to.

What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving.

I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model. Every ideal model is unique.

According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument.

In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

"To many of the greatest pianists of our time, one man was critically important: Franz Mohr, former Chief Concert Technician of Steinway & Sons for more than a quarter of a century..."


"We know about historic temperaments and all this. They’re all very nice to know about, but they do not work for our modern piano.

BD: Would you tune differently if the concert was just the Goldberg Variations, as opposed to an all-modern program of Schoenberg and Webern?

FM: No I wouldn’t, nor have I ever been requested to tune any different temperament! Never, ever!..."


"As the close colleague of legendary musicians such as Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould, Rudolf Serkin and many others, Franz Mohr attended to their Steinway instruments, making delicate adjustments that affect tone, balance, and other characteristics of sound. It was Mohr who enabled these virtuosos to fully realize their own, individual interpretative styles, and to fully realize their concept of tonal color. Franz Mohr directed the preparation and maintenance of all Steinway pianos provided for concert and artists' service throughout the world and was the technical advisor to technicians at 100 dealer locations where hundreds of Steinway pianos stand ready for concert use."

Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 06:47 PM

I ask the question again. I think this is probably the 4th time on this forum that I have asked this and have not got a satisfactory answer.

When you HT proponents get your temperament wrong, or tune some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you just keep quiet and not say anything?

Is it not the subjectivity that is so attractive about tuning HT's? There is a large room for movement, flowing from one to another with many variations, in so much that, whatever one tunes, when one is tuning an HT, you just can't go wrong, all is well!?

Isn't it great to be able to wallow in such a big shallow pool!? What a standard?

What standard? Which standard? Who's standard?

Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 07:07 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I agree with Ed Foote on this.

Alfredo, I'm glad that you desire to delineate what creates a great ET mathematically with your CHAS approach. However, it seems your only motive is to sell your approach and inject this into every thread that might, even peripherally, accept it.

I don't think a 'standard' needs to be made beyond what already is. In fact, it shouldn't. Ed delineated clearly how standard ET is used in the PTG to act as a test that can be clearly defined and tuned to.

What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving.

I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model. Every ideal model is unique.

According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument.

In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with.



Tunewerk,

I do not think we need to agree on "why" we write in this Forum and on what is peripheral. And I am not (here) into "selling" my approach, but offering it for free.

I think that, "beyond what already is", representing a new approach may help young tuners to focus on aural tuning targets, and I try to delineate clearly how the 12 or 16 notes required for tuning the first ET are not enough, not suitable for tuning a piano as a whole. For this reason I think that the PTG's test, although "clearly defined", is far from referencing/ensuring a reliable standard.

You wrote: ...What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving."...

To me, your words sound like poetry out of place. During my own research I tried to be lucid (perhaps you know how beats can keep you on earth), that is what makes me feel vibrant and free.

..."I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model."...

I hope you can solve your problem.

..."Every ideal model is unique."...

I agree.

..."According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument."...

Why do you mention "a great aural tuner", are you a great aural tuner? How do you aim at "maximum resonance of the instrument", is that in force of 12 root of two? Or your free artistry?

..."In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with."...

If you manage to find your answer, all the better. For the time being, I hope you do not mind if I keep on sharing with others.
.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 07:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

So, what I am getting from your post so far and the above quote, is this, 1. ET is the most easily measured temperament by objective means, 2. That HT's are purely subjective and not easily measured, and, 3. That HT is a personal preferance and taste.

It is all very well to harp on reverse well, but what I still have not heard from the HT proponents is, when you folks do get your temperament wrong, tuning some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you not say?


This is what I get from every discussion of UT(HT) vs. ET that I've read here. To add, when asked, okay, "If not ET, then *which* UT?" never a straight answer.

Let's go to that PTG test. If not ET, which UT should be used for the test, and how would it be measured?

Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 07:31 PM

From what I heard on the video Bill Bremmer posted earlier, besides the too-sharp D#, I have to say, I did not like what I heard.

But then, I find beauty in symmetry...
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 07:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I ask the question again. I think this is probably the 4th time on this forum that I have asked this and have not got a satisfactory answer.

When you HT proponents get your temperament wrong, or tune some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you just keep quiet and not say anything?

Is it not the subjectivity that is so attractive about tuning HT's? There is a large room for movement, flowing from one to another with many variations, in so much that, whatever one tunes, when one is tuning an HT, you just can't go wrong, all is well!?

Isn't it great to be able to wallow in such a big shallow pool!? What a standard?

What standard? Which standard? Who's standard?


I'll answer this here.

Historical temperaments in their intention were not subjective. They were very specific in their instruction. Additionally, the theory of equal temperament was known during the time that they were developed!

Each had a design for modulation through the circle of 5ths. They very carefully played with shifting of tone color among the keys on the lower inharmonicity instruments of the time.

Now, no one today would probably have an ear for determining what is wrong with an historical temperament - you are right - because we are only educated to know what equal temperament sounds like. So what would pass as an historical temperament today, might very well have a poor, undefined quality.

Owen Jorgensen notes that the first beat frequencies for organ tuning in equal temperament were published in 1810. It was published by a mathematician and actually meant as a joke - signed by 'Musicus Ignoramus'. They couldn't believe that a musician would actually tolerate a C-E beat speed that fast. This is how the tastes were at the time (and lower inharmonicity instruments contributed to those tastes).

Originally Posted By: Alfredo Capurso
I think that, "beyond what already is", representing a new approach may help young tuners to focus on aural tuning targets, and I try to delineate clearly how the 12 or 16 notes required for tuning the first ET are not enough, not suitable for tuning a piano as a whole. For this reason I think that the PTG's test, although "clearly defined", is far from referencing/ensuring a reliable standard.


I agree with this part, Alfredo, partly. I think a model that extends further is good and necessary to a deeper understanding of tuning - and to a higher quality in tuning. I also agree with you that aural targets are discrete and not sliding - as tuning machines define them.

However, you do not understand the PTG test if you think that it is not a reliable standard. It is very clear in its defined form, to weed out people who cannot tune to a standard. It is not the finest, most elevated form of equal temperament, but it is a standard.

The PTG test is based on a very conservative form of equal temperament, biasing beat speeds over musicality, because beat speeds can be measured.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/17/13 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: rxd
If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.


Right.

I'm interested to see what the proponents of UT's have to say about it, as they have been disparaging of that standard.



Where I live, the "Standard" is often anything but ET. The dealer I do about half of my work for and provides instruments for public performance venues insists that no piano from his dealership ever be tuned in ET. Plain and simple.

What gets me are not those who truly can and do tune ET, it is those who claim to only tune ET but instead only offer Reverse Well. If you ask me, it was the attempt to impose the very universal standard you have in mind that unintentionally lead to far more tuners tuning Reverse Well than actual ET.

I would like to see what would happen if someone tried to tune a piano so that it matched perfectly with one of those tuned percussion instruments. Those would be perfect ET, wouldn't they? So go ahead and match the piano pitch by pitch to one of them and see what happens.
Posted by: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 12:15 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.


Is it just me, or do all electronic keyboards vary drastically from ET. Every keyboard I check, doesn't matter how expensive it is, has uneven M3's, varying P12's and octaves, and just sounds horrible, IMHO.

In my course, after we get a small taste of evenly increasing M3's, I like to turn on an electronic keyboard if one is nearby, and play chromatic intervals, to show the students that the accepted opinion that electronic keyboards are "in tune" or at least ET, is false, and that only an acoustic piano has the potential to really sound in tune, from the perspective of octaves anyway. (I don't want to get into the ET is/is not in tune, etc. discussion)

Does anyone know why this is?

My theory is that a perfectly tuned ET on an electronic instrument must sound horrible; no resonance, so the intentional untuning creates a quasi resonance.

There must be some reason. Korg, and Roland, and Yamaha, wouldn't spend millions on research and development for these instruments not to spend time and money choosing a decent tuning. Do I have my rose coloured glasses on again?
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 12:46 AM

Good question, Mark. I've never heard a keyboard in good ET. Invariably an interval or two will be hopelessly astray. Rather surprising considering that the so-called "exactness of electronics" is on its side. Perhaps it shouldn't be, though. Behind electronics is fallibility directing its course.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 12:52 AM

Now there's a case where there needs to be a better standard!

I have the same experience, Mark. I think it has to do with relative ignorance on the part of the engineers designing the keyboards. It's not their area of specialty.

I once had a long conversation with a Kurzweil engineer while working on a piano. He was a programmer for synthesized piano tone (in the division where they actually do these recordings). It surprised me that I ended up teaching him as much as he taught me.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 12:53 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
http://www.bruceduffie.com/mohr.html

Piano Technician Franz Mohr

A Conversation with Bruce Duffie

BD: Does it bother you when you see a technician, or someone trying to tune a piano, who is using a little electronic strobe?

FM: [Becoming a bit agitated] Oh, absolutely! Absolutely! I go quite mad, although many, many use it. There’s nothing wrong with the machine itself. The machine is perfect, but to translate what the machine tells you into the practical tuning is an entirely different story. Unless you learn to use your hearing — which comes in combination with your touch, with your feeling in your fingers, the touch of the tuning hammer — unless it comes through hearing into the tuning hammer to set the tuning pin, you will never, ever get this kind of tuning into a piano.

BD: Why?

FM: Because the machine may tell you exactly if the pitch is right. It’s right on, so you take your tuning hammer off from that tuning pin and you go to the next tuning pin. But it’s already out because you have never really set it. Looking at that machine might improve your eyesight, but certainly not your hearing because you rely on your eyes and not on your hearing. When I check somebody out to see if he has hearing for tuning, what I usually do is let him tune unison to see if he hears octaves and if he can put a unison in where one string is out. You immediately can see that.

BD: But you’ve got to be listening in equal temperament. You can’t be listening in perfect intervals.

FM: You cannot tune any interval pure, not a fifth or fourth. You cannot do it. You have to temper. That’s why we call it temperament! It has to fit in through the whole scale, through the whole circle of fifths. We know about historic temperaments and all this. They’re all very nice to know about, but they do not work for our modern piano.

BD: Would you tune differently if the concert was just the Goldberg Variations, as opposed to an all-modern program of Schoenberg and Webern?

FM: No I wouldn’t, nor have I ever been requested to tune any different temperament! Never, ever!


"As the close colleague of legendary musicians such as Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould, Rudolf Serkin and many others, Franz Mohr attended to their Steinway instruments, making delicate adjustments that affect tone, balance, and other characteristics of sound. It was Mohr who enabled these virtuosos to fully realize their own, individual interpretative styles, and to fully realize their concept of tonal color. Franz Mohr directed the preparation and maintenance of all Steinway pianos provided for concert and artists' service throughout the world and was the technical advisor to technicians at 100 dealer locations where hundreds of Steinway pianos stand ready for concert use."


Priceless! Thank you for posting this.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 01:39 AM

Thanks for the informative discusion
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 02:41 AM

It's a pleasure Bob!
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 03:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Originally Posted By: rxd
If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.


Is it just me, or do all electronic keyboards vary drastically from ET. Every keyboard I check, doesn't matter how expensive it is, has uneven M3's, varying P12's and octaves, and just sounds horrible, IMHO.

In my course, after we get a small taste of evenly increasing M3's, I like to turn on an electronic keyboard if one is nearby, and play chromatic intervals, to show the students that the accepted opinion that electronic keyboards are "in tune" or at least ET, is false, and that only an acoustic piano has the potential to really sound in tune, from the perspective of octaves anyway. (I don't want to get into the ET is/is not in tune, etc. discussion)

Does anyone know why this is?

My theory is that a perfectly tuned ET on an electronic instrument must sound horrible; no resonance, so the intentional untuning creates a quasi resonance.

There must be some reason. Korg, and Roland, and Yamaha, wouldn't spend millions on research and development for these instruments not to spend time and money choosing a decent tuning. Do I have my rose coloured glasses on again?


Mark the instruments using a sample by note should be better, but often one sampled note is used for the four next so they will have the same iH , same spectra, ect

Now if the sampled notes electronic keyboards are made in America they probably have a reverse well tuning on them.

Again something the diabolic America is trying to sell us poor Europeans wink

I feel the strong hand behind that
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 09:00 AM

Quote:
Is it just me, or do all electronic keyboards vary drastically from ET. Every keyboard I check, doesn't matter how expensive it is, has uneven M3's, varying P12's and octaves, and just sounds horrible, IMHO.


No, Mark, it is not just you. I have noticed the same thing. I have also often read that a beginning technician should use such an instrument as a model. Even Dr. William Braide-White made such a suggestion.

I have learned a lot from many great PTG mentors, to be sure: Owen Jorgensen, Jim Coleman, Sr., Virgil Smith and Franz Mohr among them (and placed in that order of importance).

Mark from South Africa chose to name names and went nuts on another thread with his own wild speculations that have nothing at all to do with my experience nor motivations but they do constitute a libelous attack. I'll let them stand, however so they may appear forever on his own record.

I never did read any of Rick Baldassin's material but I did attend a lecture where he talked of the importance of the three contiguous M3's to create a framework for the initial temperament octave. He was not the only one, of course. Bill Garlick (another great mentor), Dr. Al Sanderson and Jim Coleman, Sr. had also advocated their use.

In 2003, when I set about to finding new ways to help people pass the PTG Tuning exam, I specifically avoided ever reading any of Rick Baldassin's material because I did not want to be influenced by it in any way.

I have also never read any of our friend from Germany's material. While I attended one lecture of his, I hardly understood a word he was saying. I still have no clear idea of exactly what he does. I don't agree with the idea of an ET within a pure 12th as being optimum either, so if he uses any tone clusters at all, they are not what I do and not how I use them.

It stands to reason that if something exists, any number of people will discover it independently of each other. No one that I know of ever advocated the use of two pairs of octaves, F3-F4 and A3-A4 to prove that the initial set of Contiguous M3's is correct.

Only Jack Stebbins has found another way of doing that which I never use or have ever written about except to also recommend it and disseminate that information for those for whom it would work any better than my own idea. It does work better for some people because it involves a lower set of of M3's which can be more easily discerned.

Franz Mohr gave me a lot of inspiration which is one thing he is quite good at. But I have news for everyone: His temperaments are not strictly ET but also are not RW. He cannot give you specifics in words about what he does. He is a true artist, so his tunings vary from one piano and one circumstance to the next even though he says and what he aims for is always the same goal.

I do agree with Franz Mohr about the use of an ETD. If that is the only way a technician knows how to tune, by letting a such a device calculate the tuning and not set the pin properly, the results will not be superior. They may be adequate in many circumstances but not up to today's standards for Concert and broadcast quality tunings.

Jim Coleman, Sr. and Virgil Smith heard one of my tunings in 1992 and inquired as to what I did with the octaves. What later became known as the "Mindless Octaves" was deemed a very good idea. Jim Coleman asked me to describe what I did to Dr. Sanderson who later recalculated his tuning curve to attempt to reproduce that idea. It is still in use today.

The fact is, that we all have influenced each other. What is written on Jason Kanter's site about the EBVT is misleading. What he is talking about was not what I had been doing by ear for many years but putting it into actual writing. I had as much trouble doing that as Frans Mohr would have had. It was only after Oweb Jorgensen helped me find the exact words that the exact Temperament Sequence in writing as it has stood since 2007 was finally realized.

The others were correct in their observations, yes. They knew a lot more about electronic tuning than I did but they could only tell me that what I had come up with was not quite right. It was only Owen Jorgensen who could help me solidify the idea that I had long been able to do instinctively but only by ear. A lot like the way Franz Mohr has always tuned.

The accusation of plagiarism is a serious one! I have never copied anyone's material and used it as my own. I have, however read and studied the material of many authors and combined ideas from each to come up with new ideas of my own. The material I have published either on here or in the PTG Journal is intended solely to help other technician understand tuning better and to find ways which may work for them when other methods have failed.

Since I am a PTG member of 30 years, my goal for the last 10 years has been to help technicians, either long term professionals or beginners alike to learn the skills necessary to successfully pass the PTG Tuning Exam. I also look for and advocate ways to make piano tunings sound more musically beautiful (WT). Any other motivation that anyone may ascribe to what I do is their own imagination.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 10:03 AM

ET is so embedded in the culture that it is an automatic assumption that it will be used exclusively and without question. So much so that I don't ever remember a contract ever specifying ET.

Many instruments are not true ET. Celesta are either old Mustels at 439 unstretched and flatter than the piano or modern Japanese or German at 442 with the treble stretched unconscionably. Sharper than the piano. Nobody ever thinks to retune or even replace a celeste.

Xylophone notes are so short lived and hollow that any finnesse of pitch is not really noticed. Tubular bells are so complex in tone that their pitch is always suspect. We think we have problems with inharmonicity. Unharmonicity would be a better word.

Metal bar Instruments can vary in pitch from 440 to 444+ in the same studio. The use of tuned percussion in ensemble is a cliché in movie writing for eerie scenes and the more out of tune with themselves, the more eerie it al sounds. Have a listen next time you see a scary movie.

With all this going on, what do we do with the piano? The situation that I'm in, the duties are shared by 5-6 highly experienced tuners who are scheduled so that whoever can get wherever with least inconvenience is scheduled to tune the piano there. This means that all the concert pianos are a bit like the PTG examination piano in that they are seen by one or other of the team who each correct for drift every few hours or few days so that an optimum ET tuning is always in place by consensus. We know the piano is in tune at the best ET of any instruments in the studio.
Up there with the Hammond organ which is not quite ET because it is not possible to put a fraction of a tooth in the tone wheels but is extremely close.

Due to the nature of my lifestyle, if there is ever an intonation problem that involves the piano in a recording situation that needs immediate attention, I am the one that deals with it. The only time I had to deal with a problem that involved temperament was the the temperament wobble between F# & A#. The piano was perfectly in tune but, in the sparse context of the writing, it sounded strange to somebody in the box. As it happened, they decided to use the take that way even though I offered to retune temporarily for that particular passage.
Think, if the piano had been in WT, that is usually one of the excruciatingly wide intervals and would have been noticed by everybody and his dog, particularly his dog. If the piano was in reverse well, it might not be so noticeable and I would not have been called in and lost out on the extra fee.

Pitch is currently a bigger issue than any of this. One of our concert halls is having a festival of foreign orchestras this month and one or other of the resident orchestras is playing their regular concerts between the foreign orchestra visits. The pianos are at 442 for 6 weeks so our orchestras are having to play at 442 when a piano is Involved. Phlegmatic bunch, our musicians here, not a bit pretentious so they're flexible enough to take it in their strides.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 11:02 AM

Dear Bill,

I am so confused what you are talking about here.

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
No one that I know of ever advocated the use of two pairs of octaves, F3-F4 and A3-A4 to prove that the initial set of Contiguous M3's is correct.


This is standard practice in any 'stack of 3rds' temperament.

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
Franz Mohr gave me a lot of inspiration which is one thing he is quite good at. But I have news for everyone: His temperaments are not strictly ET but also are not RW. He cannot give you specifics in words about what he does.


This comes down to splitting hairs with definitions. Due to variations in inharmonicity, ANY excellent aural equal temperament tuning will vary from being strictly equal, especially in terms of RBI's to favor the more important SBI's. So all progressions will not work out all of the time simply because of where the harmonics occur in the instruments.

Can you delineate for me what this term means that you keep using, reverse well?

Agreed with many other of your good points. If you are interested in knowing what Stopper is doing, it is solved in the thread 'Stopper's Temperament'.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 11:24 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis

So, what I am getting from your post so far and the above quote, is this, 1. ET is the most easily measured temperament by objective means, 2. That HT's are purely subjective and not easily measured, and, 3. That HT is a personal preferance and taste.

It is all very well to harp on reverse well, but what I still have not heard from the HT proponents is, when you folks do get your temperament wrong, tuning some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you not say?


This is what I get from every discussion of UT(HT) vs. ET that I've read here. To add, when asked, okay, "If not ET, then *which* UT?" never a straight answer.

Let's go to that PTG test. If not ET, which UT should be used for the test, and how would it be measured?




Perhaps because that's the wrong question... Kindof like:

Should there be a standard flavor of ice cream? Isn't it vanilla? If not vanilla, then what flavor?

Here's one takeaway on these discussions - the little secret that doesn't often come up, but gets danced around as we discover that there is quite a range for what is accepted as ET:

To most uneducated techs and musicians (I'm talking about uneducated, inexperienced in playing/hearing a variety of temperaments) it really doesn't matter what the temperament is as long as it doesn't draw attention to itself - how different that needs to be would be a good experiment... What matters most is the quality of each unison and how the octaves relate to one another across the range of the keyboard. Virgil Smith wrote of "beatless octaves" (that were proven to be impossible by scientific standards), Bill writes about "mindless octaves" - some ETD designers and users (myself included) have spent a great deal of time to find ways to guide the machine to find a stretch that allows the piano to resonate across the octaves.

Now once we move to an educated sample - clients of those techs that offer multiple temperaments and show how to listen to the differences, then we find that there are still lots of people that either don't hear the difference, or it just doesn't matter to them. A very, very small percentage do prefer ET, but a larger percentage prefer "other"... But that "other" isn't singular, it is a range, a choice offered up to the one that is to make music with the piano.

So my question to those trying to declare a standard is:

Why are you so against choice for the consumer?

Ron Koval
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 11:39 AM

I am not against choice for the consumer. But if the consumer wants a different choice, the consumer has to specify what it is and be there to approve it. Otherwise, I will assume that they accept the standard.

The last time I had anyone try to do that, they called at the last minute to get the piano tuned, then they called back saying they wanted it at another pitch, then they did not show up when I was scheduled to tune, and then they complained about the tuning when I came back to pull up a string I had replaced. I told them, fine, get somebody else to tune it the way they wanted, and went home. The next day, the production manager called me and said he did not blame me at all. I am still tuning there. The performers have never been back.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 01:00 PM

unecessary response deleted
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 02:12 PM

Mr. Davis,

As one who prefers the "other" category, as illustrated by this quote by Mr. Koval, I take exception to your rather misdirected address of drivel as drivel.

"A very, very small percentage do prefer ET, but a larger percentage prefer "other"... But that "other" isn't singular, it is a range, a choice offered up to the one that is to make music with the piano."

I would accept the logic of one of the most respected tuner/technicians in a major metropolitan area, such as Chicago, as being more substantial than opinion from a "Piano Tuner & Technician" located in an undisclosed location, without accreditation or certification, the name of whose company is unsearchable and unlinked, and has a blank profile at Piano World.

Credibility does seem to be an issue.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 02:40 PM

after temperance leagues, now we have temperament league !

Honestly, it is refreshing to read all that from so far.

BTW the "best shot of those dumb Broadwood tuners in 1850 and a hair" temperament, on a fine Steinway, gave the very convincing comment "the piano is not very well tuned" .

AT the question (after rehearsal) "does it add something?

the answer was : "nope, sorry" .

Probably also a dumb pianist (they are all)

Same thing on an old pianos, : almost unsuspected. In the end helps by distracting the ear from hearing the old wire and unevenness of tone of an old soundboard.




Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 02:42 PM

unecessary response deleted
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 02:57 PM

unecessary response deleted
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 03:15 PM

Drugs?

Religion?

Psychiatric Condition?

This is too totally weird.

Neither Mr. Koval nor I referred to Mr. Mohr or other theoreticians of tuning temperaments. It was you and Mr. Bremmer who introduced them. I have great respect and regard for Mr. Bremmer, however.

I have never claimed to be a Jesuit. I have studied at, and received a degree from, a major Jesuit institution, however. Logic was part of my curriculum.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 03:16 PM

All, I knew I should never have entered the fray. On this thread and the other.

I must withdraw as I forsee no end to this controversy and there are many better and more educated than I, who I am sure will continue with it.

All of this is taking up far to much of my time and I have much more important things that need my attention.

To good acquaintances, all the best!

To not so good acquaintances, all the best!
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 03:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty


I have never claimed to be a Jesuit. I have studied at, and received a degree from, a major Jesuit institution, however. Logic was part of my curriculum.



My sincere apologies then for calling you something that you are not!

Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 04:54 PM

greetings.

will respond later, hand in cast; fresh carpal tunnel surgery...
ed
Posted by: Emmery

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I ask the question again. I think this is probably the 4th time on this forum that I have asked this and have not got a satisfactory answer.

When you HT proponents get your temperament wrong, or tune some errors in to it, what do you call your tuning? or do you just keep quiet and not say anything?

Is it not the subjectivity that is so attractive about tuning HT's? There is a large room for movement, flowing from one to another with many variations, in so much that, whatever one tunes, when one is tuning an HT, you just can't go wrong, all is well!?

Isn't it great to be able to wallow in such a big shallow pool!? What a standard?

What standard? Which standard? Who's standard?



Mark, save your breath with this question. The tuners tuning UT's or even HT's simply get a deer in the headlights look on their faces if you point out certain intervals and ask them, "is that what this is supposed to sound like?" ET has a slow progressive nature about beat rates where a group of techs could extrapolate from the temperaments context fairly accuratly, if an interval fits appropriatly, or not. Most any other temperament is a free for all in this sense.

I had a Russian concert pianist play a piano tuned in EBVT and she got about 10 bars into some heavy Rachmaninoff...stopped on one of the thick chords and soured her face as she shook her head. She simply said, "its not supposed to sound like that'. Was she in the wrong key? Did the chord contain intervals not favoured or considered with the temperament? Who knows? Even the tech who tuned it couldn't address why there was an issue. One thing for certain is that if it was in ET and something dreadfully amiss...there would have been a common ground/standard which we all could likely have agreed on.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 10:29 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner


Why are you so against choice for the consumer?

Ron Koval


Thank you, Ron, my sentiments exactly! Why should a Communist Government dictate how we tune the piano? The idea may seem sound: Standardization. One size fits all. Forget about key color when we can have everything the same!

I may even be willing to go along with that except that the inevitable result of it is Reverse Well! That inevitable result, I will never accept!

The reasons why Reverse Well is the inevitable result have been very clearly stated. The proof that it exists can be found anywhere and everywhere.

The "Holy Grail" temperament (supposedly ET) and octave stretching scenario that the original poster of this topic imagined is nothing more than hypothetical.

For those who fly in to tune pianos that were tuned only 3 hours ago, it may be a reality. For all others, it is a pipe dream.

Where I live and work, I am ORDERED more often than not, to NOT tune the piano in ET!
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 10:44 PM

Quote:
I had a Russian concert pianist play a piano tuned in EBVT and she got about 10 bars into some heavy Rachmaninoff...stopped on one of the thick chords and soured her face as she shook her head. She simply said, "its not supposed to sound like that'.

Strange that I never had an experience like that in over 30 years!
Posted by: Chris Leslie

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/18/13 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Quote:
I had a Russian concert pianist play a piano tuned in EBVT and she got about 10 bars into some heavy Rachmaninoff...stopped on one of the thick chords and soured her face as she shook her head. She simply said, "its not supposed to sound like that'.

Strange that I never had an experience like that in over 30 years!

Could be that it was badly tuned rather than the particular tuning system.

Bill, I am however puzzled by why your community appears to demand UT tuning but my community does not. My community is musically educated and we have a healthy local classical concert scene. Only once, a few weeks ago, have I ever been asked to tune in a particular way. I suspect that you are getting a minority clientele that knows you and have particular wishes.

Also, I am sure that RW is not the norm for pianos that are new to me. If a new to me piano has unisons that are not too bad, then I would say that the pianos are more commonly randomly tempered.

Perhaps we could call this RT.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:38 AM

This is the problem with trying to discuss temperaments other than equal temperament and just intonation: there are no standards. As I said originally, you can get a quick and dirty definition of both of those tunings and figure out what they are, regardless of the pitch you start with, just comparing, rather than counting, beats, and without using any equipment other than your ears. Just intonation requires that one pick one note and decide that is the most important key for all your music, but equal temperament does not require even that.

All other temperaments require a lot more. You have to know what intervals are supposed to be more important than others, so many other criteria need to be given. Until you know what all those criteria are, there is no way of evaluating whether the tuning was done correctly or not.

One other standard that is absolute is that all unisons have to be tuned correctly. After all, if one string is tuned to one temperament, and another is tuned to a different temperament, how are we to know which temperament was intended? The same goes for octaves. Too often, we are given examples where the unisons or octaves are off, and told that "the temperament" is good or bad. We could ask, "Which one?" but the plain fact is, without very clean unisons and octaves, there is no temperament. It is just out of tune. So when someone offers a tuning where the unisons or octaves are wildly off and claims that it is an example of a temperament, there is no point discussing the subject at all with that person.

Good unisons and good octaves are more important than temperament, up to the point there is something seriously wrong with some interval. That is another problem with trying to discuss temperaments. People notice unisons and octaves which are off much more readily than they hear other intervals being off or on.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:23 AM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner


So my question to those trying to declare a standard is:

Why are you so against choice for the consumer?

Ron Koval


I don't get how you extrapolate that from the question of there being an industry standard for temperament?
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:23 AM

Judging by the way UT's are vehemently defended here and the manner in which it is done, I suspect the clients who are "demanding UT's" are being heavily sold on it, "reasoned" into it, or even subtly bullied into it.

Most of the proponents of UT's patently have bullying personalities. Their quirks are regarded as relatively unimportant by their clientele because, by their own estimation of themselves, usually by comparing themselves to their competition, they are the best of a bad bunch.

I really have to seriously question the self esteem of a tuner who feels it necessary to continually compare their work to the months or years old work of another and then use it as some kind of ammunition to prove a point to some of us here who can see right through what they are attempting to do.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:32 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
Judging by the way UT's are vehemently defended here and the manner in which it is done, I suspect the clients who are "demanding UT's" are being heavily sold on it, "reasoned" into it, or even subtly bullied into it.

Most of the proponents of UT's patently have bullying personalities. Their quirks are regarded as relatively unimportant by their clientele because, by their own estimation of themselves, usually by comparing themselves to their competition, they are the best of a bad bunch.

I really have to seriously question the self esteem of a tuner who feels it necessary to continually compare their work to the months or years old work of another and then use it as some kind of ammunition to prove a point to some of us here who can see right through what they are attempting to do.


Well said. I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It's such a simple question, to which no UT proponent has yet answered: Which one? Not even so much as a "whatever the heck one you want" in response. Instead, it's all about ET-bashing and demeaning anyone who tunes ET, by either calling them boring or wrong.

I honestly don't get it.

Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:14 AM

a
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:30 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?





I suppose you may regret the question. Incidentally it gives more importance to the UT phenomenon(s) that's it is presented here than it have really.

What is called ET by the musicians and the tuners Is an goal, a common frame where the orchestra can play with the piano, musicians can play together, and the result is musical.

If scrutinized with modern analysis tools we will find some small differences in temperament zone, at an inaudible level or sometime not so inaudible. Each tuner depending on how he learned and what pianos he have to tune daily, may obtain a more or less warm, a more or less "coloured" tuning.

Calling ET that is a marketing tool used by ETD tuners in my opinion.

The result of that discussion could be "learn to tune aurally" and you will not experience the unfocused and boring tunings (no "musical meaning") we can hear sometime.

Music cannot be reduced to numbers even if they have a strong participation.

If you are a singer and you tune by ear your ET tunings must be singing somehow.

If not, something is wrong in the method employed, or the goal is not well defined.

I still do not understand your original question, I do not feel our knowledge of tuning is so much at risk, flawed, certainly and the audience may have more or less sensitivity fir justness in music, but the pianists and musicians know what they want, they know a tuning will be more or less perfect and will last more or less in an ideal condition.

Sure, the tuner job is not praised as high it could sometime. But it also happen that it could be criticized and it is not.

(At "France Musique" those days the tuner's name - not the one of the company he works for - is given at the end of each broadcast, I find that very kind to him)

In a musical communauté anyway, good tuners are very well known, recognized and in demand, the musicians want someone they can trust, and a piano that can play confidently.

The robustness of a tuning is immediately noticed, it is heard, eventually.

" should" there be a standard, is a non question, to me.

That kind of noise can only push some pianos owner to ask for aural tuning (good) or to ask for a slightly out of tune one, that will break the stability installed years after years in their piano. In that aspect the idea should be fight, but it is up to them to ask, pay, and pay again to go back to normal (assuming they have a decent sounding piano, which is indeed a small quantity of people)

Now you can have a piano with an uneven scale, old strings, a tone with too much acidity and tempered intervals may sound less good in the ear of the listener than more contrasted tonalities.

Some may believe that piano tuning was different at certain eras and certainly the cycle of 5ths was more primarly used at the early age of pianos, but tuners where not scutinized and asked to leave a certain number of beats in this or that interval.

Accesoirly the M3 stack, synonim of precision, was known as "Pleyel temperament" in France and may have been used yet long ago.

I did not really realise that for sometime, but any sequence based on slow beating or fast beating intervals, should allow a good ET tuning, it is all depending of the tuner.

The defect noticed with a C based cycle of 5ths is due to improper training and the too large power of church music.

And of the piano teatchers that avoid sharps for students !

It is incredible, anyay, that so many tuners do not know how to temper 5ths, while this is absolutely something they learned at some point.

It may have to do to improper pin technique, that push the tuner to enlarge all his intervals as a precaution.









Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:29 AM

I am writing the following to set the record straight with regard to the questioning of my credibility. There is huge difference between having credentials and having credibility.

One may have all the "credentials" and do the job but be an out right lier and thief. Another may not have the "credentials" but have a good character and can do the job too. Who will you choose? That is the more relevant and appropriate question to ask?

Anyway, one thing I am absolutely sure about is that there are liers and thieves who have the "credentials" in the piano industry, as in all others, who get away with it for decades, but thankfully not forever.

I admit, I am a self taught man. Please do not think that I am writing a sob story. I am not.

I have not had the opportunity that Ron, or other American techs have, to avail themselvess of the PTG conventions in America. We do not have that here in S.A. I am not envious either of those that do have this opportunity.

I am grateful for and to the high end tuner/techs who have written books, such as Steve Brady, RPT, Rick Baldassin RPT, A.A Reblitz, RPT, the PTG PACE series and resource files and many others. Some other folks that I must mention that have not written books but have written on the internet, and I am grateful too for their writings on particular subjects are, Bill Bremmer, RPT, Ed Foote, RPT, Kent Swafford, RPT, David Love, RPT, and others that I am forgetting about for the moment.

I have had the opportunity to be a part of the South African association of piano tuners, that does have exams, and I have chosen not to, for, I trust, prudent reasons.

I do not know everything, about piano technology, and I am not expert in many things, but some things I do know and those thing I know that I can execute well. Yes, this will remain a question for those who do not know me, until proven, but I may never have the opportunity to prove that, which is not a concern to me.

I, in the Lord's grace, have built myself up from almost nothing, but for sake of brevity, I will spare all the details of that history. I have been an independant piano tuner/tech in South Africa for 3 years now and I have built up a good clientele of accomplished pianists. I have many repeat clients too and unfortunately due to a poor economy many people only get their pianos tuned once a year now, so one needs to find even more clients to fill in that space.

Many of my clients have written to me after I have done work for them, thanking me for an excellent job, of piano service/tuning/restoration etc... These clients have told many other people about me and I have got further work out of that too.

I have the ability to take a grand or upright piano which is in poor condition and to put it into a good condition and regulate and tune it to the satisfaction of accomplished pianists. This is not to say that what I have done could not be bettered by the likes of Ed Foote or David Love, or others who are of like calibre, but they would more than likely take the piano from being a Subaru to being an Aston Martin.

I am one who continues my education, and hopefully will never be one to say that I have arrived. At this moment, I am looking into other areas of piano technolgy, such as touch weight, action geometry etc...

I am able to offer my clients what I am expert in, action regulation/service, piano tuning and repairs. I also do offer restoration work, including strippping and polishing piano cabinets. I also know what a well tuned piano sounds like and am able to tune a piano well. I know the parameters of tuning, the objective and subjective.

As I said earlier this year on the forum, that I used tunelab strictly for about 2 -3 years. This is after tuning aurally for clients for 5 years, apart from tuning in a workshop scenario for 3 years.
I have gone back to tuning aurally this year and I am glad to have made this change. So I have experience in tuning aurally and tuning with a device.

I may not be the best tuner or technician out there, but I trust that I am honest and one of the competent and capable ones out there, who strives for excellence and a continued education of myself for the good of myself and my client.

Please take a look at my facebook business page, it may give some idea of who I am and what the quality of my work ethic is.

Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:56 AM

I see, Isaac, you have added on your previous post... :-)

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?





I suppose you may regret the question. Incidentally it gives more importance to the UT phenomenon(s) that's it is presented here than it have really.

What is called ET by the musicians and the tuners Is an goal, a common frame where the orchestra can play with the piano, musicians can play together, and the result is musical.

If scrutinized with modern analysis tools we will find some small differences in temperament zone, at an inaudible level or sometime not so inaudible. Each tuner depending on how he learned and what pianos he have to tune daily, may obtain a more or less warm, a more or less "coloured" tuning.

Calling ET that is a marketing tool used by ETD tuners in my opinion.

The result of that discussion could be "learn to tune aurally" and you will not experience the unfocused and boring tunings (no "musical meaning") we can hear sometime.

Music cannot be reduced to numbers even if they have a strong participation.

If you are a singer and you tune by ear your ET tunings must be singing somehow.

If not, something is wrong in the method employed, or the goal is not well defined.

I still do not understand your original question, I do not feel our knowledge of tuning is so much at risk, flawed, certainly and the audience may have more or less sensitivity fir justness in music, but the pianists and musicians know what they want, they know a tuning will be more or less perfect and will last more or less in an ideal condition.

Sure, the tuner job is not praised as high it could sometime. But it also happen that it could be criticized and it is not.

In a musical communauté anyway, good tuners are very well known, recognized and in demand, the musicians want someone they can trust, and a piano that can play confidently.

The robustness of a tuning is immediately noticed, it is heard, eventually.

" should" there be a standard, is a non question, to me.

That noise can only push some pianos owner to ask for aural tuning (good) or to ask for a slightly out of tune one, that will break the stability installed tears after years in their piano. In that aspect the idea should be fight, but it is up to them to ask, pay, and pay again to go back to normal (assuming they have a decent sounding piano, which is indeed a small quantity of people)





Hi,

As far as I am concerned, the original question, ..."Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely?"... contains the answer:

If the "standard of tuning" is "failsafe" to the point that "all musicians can ultimately rely upon", then the standard could well be "universally-accepted". This is what I would think as a musician.

As a young tuner, I was tought to make all keys and notes sound in tune, it was not even whether the temperament would be UT or ET, but much more than that: the whole piano had to sound in tune.

Today I am pleased when I find a piano (say) in good shape 'cos I can expect my work (on that piano) get closer to my goal and "last" longer.

I do refer to a "standard" tuning in my dayly work and I believe that this, in general, helps pianos develop a stable condition, and makes me rely on my own performance. Yes, more than tunings, I like thinking in terms of standard.

I have to add on my reply (below). I will do that in a different thread.

Cheers, a.c.

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I agree with Ed Foote on this.

Alfredo, I'm glad that you desire to delineate what creates a great ET mathematically with your CHAS approach. However, it seems your only motive is to sell your approach and inject this into every thread that might, even peripherally, accept it.

I don't think a 'standard' needs to be made beyond what already is. In fact, it shouldn't. Ed delineated clearly how standard ET is used in the PTG to act as a test that can be clearly defined and tuned to.

What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving.

I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model. Every ideal model is unique.

According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument.

In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with.



Tunewerk,

I do not think we need to agree on "why" we write in this Forum and on what is peripheral. And I am not (here) into "selling" my approach, but offering it for free.

I think that, "beyond what already is", representing a new approach may help young tuners to focus on aural tuning targets, and I try to delineate clearly how the 12 or 16 notes required for tuning the first ET are not enough, not suitable for tuning a piano as a whole. For this reason I think that the PTG's test, although "clearly defined", is far from referencing/ensuring a reliable standard.

You wrote: ...What emerges beyond this dry starting point is what separates the great from the average technicians. To standardize it and further make rules would drain the life out of what makes art vibrant, free and evolving."...

To me, your words sound like poetry out of place. During my own research I tried to be lucid (perhaps you know how beats can keep you on earth), that is what makes me feel vibrant and free.

..."I have a technical background in the sciences and it is even difficult for me to define a standard in what I am doing. I am fully aware of what I am doing when I am tuning aurally, and could describe it mathematically, but the problem is: it is very piecewise and complex. It cannot be summarized in a standard model."...

I hope you can solve your problem.

..."Every ideal model is unique."...

I agree.

..."According to the spectrum of a good piano, I believe there IS NO CONSTANT that can be used to delineate stretch. A great aural tuning uses a combination of alignments in different areas of the piano to achieve a maximum resonance of the instrument."...

Why do you mention "a great aural tuner", are you a great aural tuner? How do you aim at "maximum resonance of the instrument", is that in force of 12 root of two? Or your free artistry?

..."In other words, a pure 8ves, 5ths, or 12ths tuning - or anything in between - will never be the correct tuning for an entire instrument. This is true by definition of the medium we are dealing with."...

If you manage to find your answer, all the better. For the time being, I hope you do not mind if I keep on sharing with others.
.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 05:38 AM

Hi Alfredo, hope all is well !

I even added that today at France Musique (Radio France) , the name of the tuner (not the name of the company he works for) is given at the end of each broadcasting, generally, and I find that very fair to the tuner.

Some of them do a very good job indeed.

The regular venue of such "standard or no" question is really significant of the small part of knowledge/understanding most tuners perceive they do not have at 100%.

I mean many of us have experienced a particularly good sounding tuning at some occasion, without having a valuable explanation on the cause.

Please if some do not agree let me know.

In the end I find it a good thing that piano condition, precedent tuning(s) and acoustics play a so large role, leave apart the pianist intervention.

I hear some tunings done with "feeling" and others that are too neutral or too straight. The term "deepness of tone" used by RXD is describing something I like to hear in a tuning.

Best regards
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 08:06 AM

My signature will not show on my earlier post. It has just disappeared off that.

Strange but nevertheless so and now on this one too!?




Posted by: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 08:42 AM

I think a point should be made regarding ET.

By definition (I believe) ET is a temperament in which M3's all increase evenly as one goes up the keyboard. (Does anyone have any other suggestion?)

Anyway, my point is that ET is only defined as ET by a listener who can descern these differences. For a listener who cannot hear subtle differences in beat speeds, more tunings would fall into the ET category for them.

Maybe the arguement should be, who can tell the difference and why do we need to care.

For me, octaves, 12ths (and their compounds) and unisons have a higher priority right now.
Posted by: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 08:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I am writing the following to set the record straight with regard to the questioning of my credibility. There is huge difference between having credentials and having credibility.

One may have all the "credentials" and do the job but be an out right lier and thief. Another may not have the "credentials" but have a good character and can do the job too. Who will you choose? That is the more relevant and appropriate question to ask?

Anyway, one thing I am absolutely sure about is that there are liers and thieves who have the "credentials" in the piano industry, as in all others, who get away with it for decades, but thankfully not forever.

I admit, I am a self taught man. Please do not think that I am writing a sob story. I am not.

I have not had the opportunity that Ron, or other American techs have, to avail themselvess of the PTG conventions in America. We do not have that here in S.A. I am not envious either of those that do have this opportunity.

I am grateful for and to the high end tuner/techs who have written books, such as Steve Brady, RPT, Rick Baldassin RPT, A.A Reblitz, RPT, the PTG PACE series and resource files and many others. Some other folks that I must mention that have not written books but have written on the internet, and I am grateful too for their writings on particular subjects are, Bill Bremmer, RPT, Ed Foote, RPT, Kent Swafford, RPT, David Love, RPT, and others that I am forgetting about for the moment.

I have had the opportunity to be a part of the South African association of piano tuners, that does have exams, and I have chosen not to, for, I trust, prudent reasons.

I do not know everything, about piano technology, and I am not expert in many things, but some things I do know and those thing I know that I can execute well. Yes, this will remain a question for those who do not know me, until proven, but I may never have the opportunity to prove that, which is not a concern to me.

I, in the Lord's grace, have built myself up from almost nothing, but for sake of brevity, I will spare all the details of that history. I have been an independant piano tuner/tech in South Africa for 3 years now and I have built up a good clientele of accomplished pianists. I have many repeat clients too and unfortunately due to a poor economy many people only get their pianos tuned once a year now, so one needs to find even more clients to fill in that space.

Many of my clients have written to me after I have done work for them, thanking me for an excellent job, of piano service/tuning/restoration etc... These clients have told many other people about me and I have got further work out of that too.

I have the ability to take a grand or upright piano which is in poor condition and to put it into a good condition and regulate and tune it to the satisfaction of accomplished pianists. This is not to say that what I have done could not be bettered by the likes of Ed Foote or David Love, or others who are of like calibre, but they would more than likely take the piano from being a Subaru to being an Aston Martin.

I am one who continues my education, and hopefully will never be one to say that I have arrived. At this moment, I am looking into other areas of piano technolgy, such as touch weight, action geometry etc...

I am able to offer my clients what I am expert in, action regulation/service, piano tuning and repairs. I also do offer restoration work, including strippping and polishing piano cabinets. I also know what a well tuned piano sounds like and am able to tune a piano well. I know the parameters of tuning, the objective and subjective.

As I said earlier this year on the forum, that I used tunelab strictly for about 2 -3 years. This is after tuning aurally for clients for 5 years, apart from tuning in a workshop scenario for 3 years.
I have gone back to tuning aurally this year and I am glad to have made this change. So I have experience in tuning aurally and tuning with a device.

I may not be the best tuner or technician out there, but I trust that I am honest and one of the competent and capable ones out there, who strives for excellence and a continued education of myself for the good of myself and my client.

Please take a look at my facebook business page, it may give some idea of who I am and what the quality of my work ethic is.



Great post Mark,

But there is one more point that should be made.

Early on in my career, I came upon pianos that had had poor work done to them and the owner had paid for the work. At first, I thought "Schister! Crook!" and I vowed I would differentiate myself from other technicians by being honest.

Now, with more experience, I have come to believe that the vast majority of these situations are created by honest technicians who are attempting a job for which they do not have the sufficient tools or skills; they had no intention of deceiving the customer; they mearly needed the work. For someone coming after, it looks the same as if someone cheated the owner by charging for inferior work.

Ideally, technicians should be able to refer to other technicians who have more experience in a particular skill if they feel uncomfprtable.

I think that is the more challenging characteristic for a technician to possess, but sadly, many cities have technicians who are untrusting of other technicians and so, do not reach out.

So each time I find shoddy work, I think first that perhaps that technician just didn't know a better way to do it.

It helps to keep me less cynical.

(Sorry for diverging the topic)
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 09:07 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: rxd
Judging by the way UT's are vehemently defended here and the manner in which it is done, I suspect the clients who are "demanding UT's" are being heavily sold on it, "reasoned" into it, or even subtly bullied into it.

Most of the proponents of UT's patently have bullying personalities. Their quirks are regarded as relatively unimportant by their clientele because, by their own estimation of themselves, usually by comparing themselves to their competition, they are the best of a bad bunch.



Well said. I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It's such a simple question, to which no UT proponent has yet answered: Which one? Not even so much as a "whatever the heck one you want" in response. Instead, it's all about ET-bashing and demeaning anyone who tunes ET, by either calling them boring or wrong.

I honestly don't get it.




Are you ignoring me? ;-)

I honestly don't see any difference here between the vitriolic defense of ET and any of the alternate flavors... Of course ET is "sold" or "pushed" onto musicians by ET only techs - there simply isn't any other choice!

I'll say it again - If the standard ice cream isn't gonna be vanilla, which one then? No one will answer what the standard ice cream flavor will be declared, so they must not have anything to really offer, or must be just sloppy ice cream makers, just anything goes!

Ron Koval
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 09:23 AM

Hello Mark

There is some truth in what you are saying.

Eventually one get's to know the people in your industry and area and that certain of these just have poor character and are just fleecing people and will always be so unless there is a radical change by the grace of God alone.

I am not cynical. I am a realist.

Regards,
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 09:39 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: RonTuner


So my question to those trying to declare a standard is:

Why are you so against choice for the consumer?

Ron Koval


I don't get how you extrapolate that from the question of there being an industry standard for temperament?



Ok, I'll try again - I noticed that you changed the original question a bit to leave out the part that the standard should be applied in certain situations - that changes things.

So... Do you see part of our role as technicians to be an educator about the piano? That changes can be made to the touch or tone? Perhaps that the client might consider another instrument which may better suit their needs? We know that there isn't one single piano model, finish, or cost which will make everyone happy. I see the multiplicity of temperaments a possibility for education on the effect of tuning on both the music and musician.

That brings up a whole 'nuther topic - the two part nature of experiencing temperament; from the bench versus from the room. Most techs today have very limited exposure hearing other temperaments and probably less time playing other temperaments than ET - I understand that it is difficult or impossible to be the educator with little or no experience from which to draw...


Ron Koval
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 10:50 AM

Thanks Mark (Davis).

The Autodidactic Hall of Fame.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 11:21 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It seems to flow forth from both sides of the argument.

From a musician's viewpoint:

Unisons on a piano have nothing to do with temperament. That is nothing more than the design of the modern piano which has more than one string assigned to any given pitch. Unisons are either in tune or not. Temperament is the width of an interval, not within a unison.

Just intonation is impossible on a fixed pitch instrument which is to be played in multiple keys. Intonation does not, in and of itself, create any form of temperament. It is the deviation from Just which creates temperament.

Octave stretch is due to how we perceive, as humans, an octave. Even in chant (plainsong), sung in Just intonation, octave stretch occurs naturally. It is how our ears perceive an interval, rather than division or multiplication by two of the reference Hz. It is due to our physiology, rather than being derived from a mathematical progression. The mathematics are the identification of what we perceive.

I'm curious. Have any of the working tuners, who are active in this forum, tuned a piano to strict ET without any octave stretch whatsoever? What was the outcome? Does anyone know of any recorded samples?

As I said, this is my own opinion as a musician, rather than from the viewpoint as a tuner.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 11:40 AM

Thinking of the issue of "Should there be a Tuning Temperament Standard", it suddenly occurred to me, that that is not the issue.

We all surely have the right to sell what we like, within an ethical boundry.

The issue is really about what is right or wrong, legally, in society and business practice.

So what defines good business practice? Now, that is beginning to hit the nail on the head. What is right practice, legally, toward my client and what is not? What is right practice, legally, to my fellow piano tuner in the industry and what is wrong?

People should be allowed to tune whatever temperament they want if there is not going to be a standard set up legally, but there should be deterrents and punishment for poor and wrong business practice that is provable, such as lieing and or slander of ones neighbour.

America was once a nation that the world looked to for guidance and light, not so anymore. It is more of a laughing stock and scorn to most other countries, unfortunately. And why is it so, because the righteous doer is punished and the wrong doer is rewarded. What is wrong, now has become right and what is right, has now become wrong.

Well, I could go on, but I think that those who know better will be in agreement with me, and those that do not will rage against the truth.

Over to those who can rightfully expand on what I have started.

Regards,
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It seems to flow forth from both sides of the argument.

From a musician's viewpoint:

Unisons on a piano have nothing to do with temperament. That is nothing more than the design of the modern piano which has more than one string assigned to any given pitch. Unisons are either in tune or not. Temperament is the width of an interval, not within a unison.



Marty,; unison on a piano are always somewhat impure, by design, design flaws or with the work of the tuner.

I measured with an ETD the strings of unison by our most demanded tuner (+45 years experience- Steinway concert service); he left a long "tail" and used it to brighten the tone in the treble. In mediums one string was always off playing the role of "ballast" (for lack of a better world) WIth differences in pitch of 0.4 to 2cts , the 2 other strings phasing/coupling perfectly.

The tuners could do so using systematically the string that have the shorter segment in front of the tuning pin, and that will be the first to lower.
Or use a strong coupling between the 2 external strings, allowing the central one for the "artistic job " wink

In the end the unison may sound pure (but it is an acoustical illusion)
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:33 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: rxd
Judging by the way UT's are vehemently defended here and the manner in which it is done, I suspect the clients who are "demanding UT's" are being heavily sold on it, "reasoned" into it, or even subtly bullied into it.

Most of the proponents of UT's patently have bullying personalities. Their quirks are regarded as relatively unimportant by their clientele because, by their own estimation of themselves, usually by comparing themselves to their competition, they are the best of a bad bunch.



Well said. I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It's such a simple question, to which no UT proponent has yet answered: Which one? Not even so much as a "whatever the heck one you want" in response. Instead, it's all about ET-bashing and demeaning anyone who tunes ET, by either calling them boring or wrong.

I honestly don't get it.




Are you ignoring me? ;-)

I honestly don't see any difference here between the vitriolic defense of ET and any of the alternate flavors... Of course ET is "sold" or "pushed" onto musicians by ET only techs - there simply isn't any other choice!

I'll say it again - If the standard ice cream isn't gonna be vanilla, which one then? No one will answer what the standard ice cream flavor will be declared, so they must not have anything to really offer, or must be just sloppy ice cream makers, just anything goes!

Ron Koval


I didn't think I was... ;-)

With the possible exception of one thread and one poster, unless I've missed something else, I haven't seen that to be the case.

A side question: The PTG alleges to judge everyone by vanilla. I'll let that question ask itself...
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:39 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: RonTuner


So my question to those trying to declare a standard is:

Why are you so against choice for the consumer?

Ron Koval


I don't get how you extrapolate that from the question of there being an industry standard for temperament?



Ok, I'll try again - I noticed that you changed the original question a bit to leave out the part that the standard should be applied in certain situations - that changes things.

So... Do you see part of our role as technicians to be an educator about the piano? That changes can be made to the touch or tone? Perhaps that the client might consider another instrument which may better suit their needs? We know that there isn't one single piano model, finish, or cost which will make everyone happy. I see the multiplicity of temperaments a possibility for education on the effect of tuning on both the music and musician.

That brings up a whole 'nuther topic - the two part nature of experiencing temperament; from the bench versus from the room. Most techs today have very limited exposure hearing other temperaments and probably less time playing other temperaments than ET - I understand that it is difficult or impossible to be the educator with little or no experience from which to draw...


Ron Koval


I totally get that, yes.

But, if you get a room full of musicians arguing over which temperament they all need to play by - whether they know what they're talking about or not - what's the final arbiter? I realize that's a hypothetical. ;-)
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:39 PM

Isaac,

You have misread what I stated. If one choses to vary one or more strings on a "unison" from a reference pitch, you are then tempering an interval, rather than assigning a temperament. By definition, it is no longer a unison. It is then a choice.

It is much easier to understand in reference to only one string per note. Temperament applies to instruments other than the modern piano.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:44 PM

Jim,

Isn't the "vanilla" requirement of the PTG the minimum acceptable standard for admittance? Is it the ultimate goal or the starting point?
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 12:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It seems to flow forth from both sides of the argument.

From a musician's viewpoint:

Unisons on a piano have nothing to do with temperament. That is nothing more than the design of the modern piano which has more than one string assigned to any given pitch. Unisons are either in tune or not. Temperament is the width of an interval, not within a unison.

Just intonation is impossible on a fixed pitch instrument which is to be played in multiple keys. Intonation does not, in and of itself, create any form of temperament. It is the deviation from Just which creates temperament.

Octave stretch is due to how we perceive, as humans, an octave. Even in chant (plainsong), sung in Just intonation, octave stretch occurs naturally. It is how our ears perceive an interval, rather than division or multiplication by two of the reference Hz. It is due to our physiology, rather than being derived from a mathematical progression. The mathematics are the identification of what we perceive.

I'm curious. Have any of the working tuners, who are active in this forum, tuned a piano to strict ET without any octave stretch whatsoever? What was the outcome? Does anyone know of any recorded samples?

As I said, this is my own opinion as a musician, rather than from the viewpoint as a tuner.


From a musician and tuner:

Yes, I've tuned sterile octaves before just to see what they sound like. I tune the Shout House pianos with almost no stretch; it's a pet theory of mine regarding the fact those pianos are amplified. And you know what? I get the best compliments from the players there. They think I'm their God of Piano Tuning.

Any time I tune a piano that I know will be played with other instruments, I go easy on the stretch. I have received nothing but compliments as a result; no one has *ever* found fault with it.

There was one recent incident where one of the above-mentioned pianos was going to be used in a solo performance, so I tuned it with more stretch. Again, nothing but compliments. (that piano was heard by a literal Who's-Who of the local music scene, so it was a pretty critical audience)

Having said that, I see temperament and octave stretch as much of separate issues as unisons and temperament; different elements of the same task.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Isaac,

You have misread what I stated. If one choses to vary one or more strings on a "unison" from a reference pitch, you are then tempering an interval, rather than assigning a temperament. By definition, it is no longer a unison. It is then a choice.

It is much easier to understand in reference to only one string per note. Temperament applies to instruments other than the modern piano.


Marty you are playing with terminology, pitch variations can be under the ear discrimination, or be used as a "ballast" top regulate the energy flux - If we where hearing intervals in unisons we would hear a honky tonk tone.
In the end the tone can be made more or less sharper to the ear and generate more or less energy toward partials toward fundamental, within attack or slightly later - this never will be heard as an interval.

The ETD analysis was necessary to discover what I wrote. Now some pianists preferred another tuner with a rounder more intimate tone, but most of the concertos played by the major pianist where with that tune due to their demand (once he even have to delay his holidays for Daniel Barenboim)

Here is the kind of tone (very possibly the tuner I talk of, I will find a recording where it is certain)

http://youtu.be/LX4dABT2y9g
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:22 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I find the vitriolic defensiveness to be pretty unprofessional, frankly.

It seems to flow forth from both sides of the argument.

From a musician's viewpoint:

Unisons on a piano have nothing to do with temperament. That is nothing more than the design of the modern piano which has more than one string assigned to any given pitch. Unisons are either in tune or not. Temperament is the width of an interval, not within a unison.

Just intonation is impossible on a fixed pitch instrument which is to be played in multiple keys. Intonation does not, in and of itself, create any form of temperament. It is the deviation from Just which creates temperament.

Octave stretch is due to how we perceive, as humans, an octave. Even in chant (plainsong), sung in Just intonation, octave stretch occurs naturally. It is how our ears perceive an interval, rather than division or multiplication by two of the reference Hz. It is due to our physiology, rather than being derived from a mathematical progression. The mathematics are the identification of what we perceive.

I'm curious. Have any of the working tuners, who are active in this forum, tuned a piano to strict ET without any octave stretch whatsoever? What was the outcome? Does anyone know of any recorded samples?

As I said, this is my own opinion as a musician, rather than from the viewpoint as a tuner.


From a musician and tuner:

Yes, I've tuned sterile octaves before just to see what they sound like. I tune the Shout House pianos with almost no stretch; it's a pet theory of mine regarding the fact those pianos are amplified. And you know what? I get the best compliments from the players there. They think I'm their God of Piano Tuning.

Any time I tune a piano that I know will be played with other instruments, I go easy on the stretch. I have received nothing but compliments as a result; no one has *ever* found fault with it.

There was one recent incident where one of the above-mentioned pianos was going to be used in a solo performance, so I tuned it with more stretch. Again, nothing but compliments. (that piano was heard by a literal Who's-Who of the local music scene, so it was a pretty critical audience)

Having said that, I see temperament and octave stretch as much of separate issues as unisons and temperament; different elements of the same task.


"Sterile" octaves on a piano are stretched. That is the consequence of inharmonicity. Some people feel the need to widen octaves beyond that point (although in my experience, they often never get them to that point), but that is just arbitrary.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

From a musician and tuner:

Yes, I've tuned sterile octaves before just to see what they sound like. I tune the Shout House pianos with almost no stretch; it's a pet theory of mine regarding the fact those pianos are amplified. And you know what? I get the best compliments from the players there. They think I'm their God of Piano Tuning.

Any time I tune a piano that I know will be played with other instruments, I go easy on the stretch. I have received nothing but compliments as a result; no one has *ever* found fault with it.

There was one recent incident where one of the above-mentioned pianos was going to be used in a solo performance, so I tuned it with more stretch. Again, nothing but compliments. (that piano was heard by a literal Who's-Who of the local music scene, so it was a pretty critical audience)

Having said that, I see temperament and octave stretch as much of separate issues as unisons and temperament; different elements of the same task.


Yes you are right, but octaves may sound natural stretch is not something "added" it should not it must be contained in the global "in tuness" of the instrument.

I wrote you elsewhere that if you are a musician, particularly a singer) and a tuner, your tuning must "sing" naturally.

It is harder for non musicians to apprehend what mean tuning.
And when beginning we rely on theory and it can even modify our musical ear.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:40 PM

THE PTG CODE OF ETHICS

I will act honorably and in a professional manner.
I will render the best possible service under the circumstances, always keeping the best interests of my client in mind.
I will engage only in fair trade practices in the knowledge that I am reflecting the honesty and integrity for which the Piano Technicians Guild stands.
I will use the name and trademarks of the Piano Technicians Guild properly and will encourage others to do the same.
I will strive to upgrade my professional skills and I will encourage and help others to do the same.
I will promote, in any way that I can, good will toward my profession and toward the music industry.



Nice to have a standard in theory. Useless if there is no enforcement if violated, eventualy leading to corruption and cronyism.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:52 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB


"Sterile" octaves on a piano are stretched. That is the consequence of inharmonicity. Some people feel the need to widen octaves beyond that point (although in my experience, they often never get them to that point), but that is just arbitrary.


Sterile octaves can be the result of poor sounding unison too.

Tuners learn to tune octaves in their "hot spot", traditionally,
giving too much importance to the 4:2 and 6:3 balance or listening mostly to that to decide how an octave may sound , push the audition to the less useful way of apprehending octaves.

Now once I had instructions of the type "temper close, then stretch to the max" given for a concerto tuning.

The maintenance of too much stretching is mostly due to lack of control on the pin/upper segment. it acts as a parachute, actually also helping for intervals spread in the upper octaves, hence its success.

Learning to appreciate tempered slow beating intervals is a real huge step in learning tuning.

To me "stretch" is the amount of coupling allowed in the higher partials inside the octave.

That can perfectly be attained without enlarging the octave too much - with some unison for instance I can tune with 2:1 octaves (the way I listen to them)and the unison add stretch by coupling higher.
That way the piano can be crisp and retain roundness in close harmony and slow major passages.

The unison have a move during sustain. Pitch tend to drop a little and can be sustained by the coupling in partials.
The extinction curve of a note is a beat, lets say the note is finished after 6 seconds.

What is one beat in 6 seconds ? how is it perceived ?

And I am not advocating tuning beats , I just believe we do so when tuning. In high treble it is where it is evident to me. Some tuners even push the high treble with extreme beating counting the piano will be heard from some distance.

I mostly use an inflating tone at the attack that must settle in sustain and helps the treble to be heard lively. Not all pianos or situations.

But I tune the piano (I don't expect it to attain his tuning while played, even if the pianist influence the tuning somehow)
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 01:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Thinking of the issue of "Should there be a Tuning Temperament Standard", it suddenly occurred to me, that that is not the issue.

We all surely have the right to sell what we like, within an ethical boundry.

The issue is really about what is right or wrong, legally, in society and business practice.

So what defines good business practice? Now, that is beginning to hit the nail on the head. What is right practice, legally, toward my client and what is not? What is right practice, legally, to my fellow piano tuner in the industry and what is wrong?

People should be allowed to tune whatever temperament they want if there is not going to be a standard set up legally, but there should be deterrents and punishment for poor and wrong business practice that is provable, such as lieing and or slander of ones neighbour.

America was once a nation that the world looked to for guidance and light, not so anymore. It is more of a laughing stock and scorn to most other countries, unfortunately. And why is it so, because the righteous doer is punished and the wrong doer is rewarded. What is wrong, now has become right and what is right, has now become wrong.

Well, I could go on, but I think that those who know better will be in agreement with me, and those that do not will rage against the truth.

Over to those who can rightfully expand on what I have started.

Regards,



The question is an interesting one. I do not know about the whole of the USA, but in the little section wherein I reside, with the possible exception of professional furniture moving (this would include pianos), no area of piano tuning or service is regulated by law or ordinance as to mandate technical standards of any kind. While other repair services are subject to standards by law - most notably plumbers and electricians - piano service is not.

This is understandable. Standards in the former are essential to the public health and safety. The piano is a non-essential. Though I have wondered: once we install electric/electronics and water into an instrument do we come under the legal codes or standards of the city or State? That's the kind of phone call to I hate to make. Invariably, new rules and more inclusions are begotten of it.

With respect to fair business practices there are governmental legal standards for all business and consequences for failure to conform as well. Also non-legal standards set up by organizations such as the BBB, which have little to no teeth.

If piano services were to become legally regulated, one can only imagine what the imposed standards would be. We are too small to be of any real notice. I doubt that it will come to pass. However, the government is reactive by nature. If electronics - e.g., player system - were to short-out in a piano in a Statehouse, cause a fire and burn the place to the ground, and if public outcry ensued, then the powers that be might take notice and do something that would at least present an appearance of action being taken and laws set in motion to prevent the horrible thing from happening again. How far reaching or intrusive into our industry such would be is anyone's guess.

The typical government MO in regulating private business or industry is the establishment of a board of "experts" - usually political appointees - to mandate standards in all areas of the service in question - all funded by a special tax and license fee that the regulatees are expected to be pleased as punch to pay.

Perhaps is it a blessing that our industry is one that's been left alone to regulate itself through standards agreed to by the whole - or at least a substantial part of it. The PTG has done a good job at this. But only about one-half of active techs come under its code of ethics or standards via membership. The rest of us are left to determine ethical practice for ourselves.

(In my view the PTG could do much more to become more inclusive, and without the sacrifice of standards, but such requires thinking outside of the box. We cannot do this for them. But I digress and this is really an issue for another thread.)

In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:03 PM

Understood.

Thanks for explaining Bob.

Regards,
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Jim,

Isn't the "vanilla" requirement of the PTG the minimum acceptable standard for admittance? Is it the ultimate goal or the starting point?


Not from what I understand. Keep in mind, I've never taken the test.

My understanding is the test tuning is checked with an ETD set to ET.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek

I wrote you elsewhere that if you are a musician, particularly a singer) and a tuner, your tuning must "sing" naturally.

It is harder for non musicians to apprehend what mean tuning.
And when beginning we rely on theory and it can even modify our musical ear.


Dear Isaac,

Yes, I saw that, and I meant to reply to it, sorry.

I'd like to think so, and I'd like to think I have the discipline to work beyond that if needs be. In other words, make it "sing" to my customer's taste.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Understood.

Thanks for explaining Bob.

Regards,


Thanks, Mark. Don't know that I've really explained anything. But your question did give an old man something to stir the grey matter with on a Saturday morning.

Younger minds among us need to address the issues that face a diminishing industry while there is still one to save. To this end, more can be accomplished by working together than by burning daylight arguing over minutiae.

If the industry is to have a future it will more likely result from time well-spent dealing successfully with issues such as the one you've raised this morning, and not from engaging in endless argument for the sake of argument. The PTG still has the wherewithal to play a leading role in this. Sadly, from outward appearances, it seems to be following a typical pattern or cycle. To put it another way, if its emphasis is on such things as retirement programs, homes, and such like, then the sun is, indeed, close to setting.

Have a great weekend.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:48 PM

Thanks Bob

Understood and agreed

Take care,
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 02:49 PM

If you want octaves tuned to their mathematical frequencies only, Marty, with no account taken for inharmonicity, you are a few generations too late.

I am told that when the conn stroboscope became readily available to band directors, certainly by the 50's and possibly much earlier, (it was invented in 1936), it was only a small step for band directors to start tuning pianos with them.

They, of course, got a different result that real tuners but there was enough of them doing it for a while.

The strobe, of course took no account for inharmonicity in those days and while it was possible to tune a piano more properly with one by recalibrating for every note, few people did.

I have tuned a piano dead to a strobe several times on the request of Lawrence Welks' organist, Bob Ralston. He had the piano close enough to the organ that he could play both together. The electronic organ, of course, had no inharmonicity and the pitch had to match.

I never heard the piano totally solo but with the organ, it didn't sound bad except the top octave where the extreme flatness was noticeable to me but not, it seems to anyone else. The subsequent times I worked for him, I sneaked the last octave a bit sharper and there were never any repercussions.

Bob assured me that both the Baldwin pianos used on the television shows were tuned "dead to a strobe" at least during his tenure. The LA Baldwin tuner in those days used to post here, perhaps he knows. The point being that they were tuned to agree with the electronic organ.

I s'pose looking up some old Welk broadcasts on uTube will give you an idea of what it sounded like.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:00 PM

The Conn tuner did not provide some Railsback curves to compensate ?

I seem to read that (may be in Reblitz) may be in later versions of the strobe.

That is what does the PT100 Yamaha, or the first German tuning device, with predefined curves.

ANd I have heard pianos tuned that way, and noticed that "as soon that some coherent organisation of pitches is perceived, the mind can consider the instrument in tune" . (for the player-me- and you know the pianist listen with his fingers at 50%++)

Very strange but it is (at last for me and I have avery good ear)

I could hear that piano at 4 bps the double octave, that sounded "in tune" .

In the end I believe that the type of tuning generation influences a lot the way the pianist play.
Assuming he is improvising it is evident, he will tend to the better sounding harmonies - more dissonances used on a progressive tuning, be it extremely stretched, more classical and standard harmonies on a tuning using a cycle of 5ths as foundation.
Minor tonalities favored with "pure something tunings" (5th, 12ths, I leave CHAS a little apart for its close proximity with piano standard tuning)This may simply be due to the less fast beating minor Rds...

But the same may happen, with classical music played, mostly with a different use of the sustain and UC pedals , exageration of nuances,depending of the level of "aggressiveness" of the tuning.

At some point, a tuning may leave the pianist with not enough material at hand to play with (the opposite being certainly true)
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:12 PM

Originally Posted By: bkw58
(In my view the PTG could do much more to become more inclusive, and without the sacrifice of standards, but such requires thinking outside of the box. We cannot do this for them. But I digress and this is really an issue for another thread.)

In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.

Bob,

I had a look at the PTG exam documents out of interest and, as far as I can see, the only temperament covered is ET:

* Knowledge of equal temperament intervals
* Properties of equal temperament

Would you include general knowledge of WTs when thinking outside of the box?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:21 PM

Originally Posted By: bkw58
In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.

Thank you Bob!

This is what I have been trying to convey with postings to this, and other threads.

I appreciate your clarity and conciseness.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 03:46 PM

Originally Posted By: rxd
If you want octaves tuned to their mathematical frequencies only, Marty, with no account taken for onharmonicity (sic), you are a few generations too late.

I am told that when the conn stroboscope became readily available to band directors, certainly by the 50's and possibly much earlier, (it was invented in 1936), it was only a small step for band directors to start tuning pianos with them.

I was in the era of the Conn Strobotuner during the early 1960's. It was a newfangled thing and very exciting. All of us lined up, played our standard "Bb" tuning pitch, and adjusted whatever could be adjusted on a given instrument to match that single pitch. It did absolutely nothing for the intonation of the band. That is a whole different ball of wax and had nothing to do with inharmonicity, unless you mean poor intonation. I am sure we are all familiar with the cringe-worthiness of many school bands and orchestras.

At least, in the schools I attended, the band, orchestra, or choral directors/teachers did not tune pianos.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: bkw58
(In my view the PTG could do much more to become more inclusive, and without the sacrifice of standards, but such requires thinking outside of the box. We cannot do this for them. But I digress and this is really an issue for another thread.)

In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.

Bob,

I had a look at the PTG exam documents out of interest and, as far as I can see, the only temperament covered is ET:
* Knowledge of equal temperament intervals
* Properties of equal temperament

Would you include general knowledge of WTs when thinking outside of the box?


Hi Ian:

I wasn't thinking quite that far. My comment was more along the lines of things the PTG could do to be more inclusive and representative of our industry as a whole, in effect that would be to grow the entry level of membership - the Associate. But your question is a good one. A choice of temperaments on the RPT exam would certainly be more inclusive.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: bkw58
In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.

Thank you Bob!

This is what I have been trying to convey with postings to this, and other threads.

I appreciate your clarity and conciseness.


Thanks, Marty.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:02 PM

Originally Posted By: bkw58
[quote=Mark Davis]Thinking of the issue of "Should there be a Tuning Temperament Standard", it suddenly occurred to me, that that is not the issue.

//SNIP//

In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.


Yes, bkw58, I quite agree with you when you refer to "arts", not quite when it is supposed to be science.

For instance, ETD's manufacturers do mention Equal Temperament but... should not they respond to an official standard before they can sell...(?) Four years ago Robert Scott was saying that they (ETDS ET) are all "variations" from 12 root of two...

Cui prodest?

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 04:51 PM

Marty, I agree that the stroboscope did nothing for wind intonation but it was the original ETD and the term "dead to a strobe" was commonly used by those who tried to use them for piano tuning. My point was that the piano had to be in tune, note for note with the organ which would be the same as a strobe, rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps you were trying to make some other point but I was only trying to answer your question. Perhaps others can use the information.

Isaac, I was, of course, talking of the original analogue strobe that was still being used in the USA for pianos when I first went there in the 1970's. Of course, their adherents were telling experienced tuners that they were wrong. Nothing's changed.
There was a later digital version that was more suitable for piano work but I never saw one.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 05:19 PM

rxd,

You were the one that stated that band directors used them and then equated that to band directors tuning pianos.

I simply pointed out that piano tuning was not the reason that they were used in the school systems. It was ultimately understood to be a 'fad' that really served no purpose in the training of young musicians.
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 06:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
[...] The issue is really about what is right or wrong, legally, in society and business practice. [...]


Dear Mark Davis,

First of all, I appreciate your posts, even though I think you bend the nail too hard over to the ET side of things. wink

But, second of all, let me get very goofy here and say that if I am reading "life" right--that which is "right or wrong, legally," has more to do with a whole bunch of convoluted definitions which have very little to do with actual right or wrong than they do with actual moral judgement, which is much more organic than definitions. As such, Truth is rarely found, legally speaking. (That said, "Court" will often get to truth, thank God, and would that "government" were taken to "court" more often! smile Personally, I'm not against "Court" to bring out truth, but I think life is larger and more robust than what anyone can find by doing things "legally." "Right" and "Wrong" are absolutes, and is the better standard, IMHO. And, I don't think ET or UT are moral absolutes, though I do think judging unisons could fall into a "yes" or "no" standard... grin )

--Andy
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 07:19 PM

I'm in unison with Andy.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/19/13 10:08 PM

I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.
Posted by: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 12:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Dear Bill,

I am so confused what you are talking about here.

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
No one that I know of ever advocated the use of two pairs of octaves, F3-F4 and A3-A4 to prove that the initial set of Contiguous M3's is correct.



I hope Bill won't mind me answering. I have been advocating this with my students for a while. I have named it the Skeleton.

With my technique, we tune A4 from the fork, then A3A4, then pick F3 so F3A3 is approx. 7bps, then C#4 so that F3A3C#4F4 has evenly changing beat speeds (or colour, as I prefer) Note: speeds do not need to be increasing, they can be the same, or decreasing. I call this the lower skeleton.

Then we retune F4 (if necessary) so that A3C#4F4A4 (upper skeleton) has M3's slowly increasing in speed or colour. This is imperative. If you cannot get A3C#4F4A4 to progress with increasing beats speeds, the octaves F3F4 and A3A4 are not the same size. Recheck them and start over.

Finally, we retune F3 from F4 (if necessary) and check F3A3C#4F4A4. Again, if we can't get it to fit with slowly increasing colour, recheck F3F4 and A3A4.

Hope this helps. I teach this method in my basic tuning course.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 12:38 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 02:06 AM

There already is a "Standard". It seems too simple to say this, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 03:31 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.


With your new regulations on health care, may be piano tuning can be made free for depressive people.

Take care anyway, as one customer wanted to commit suicide after an unison slipped, hopefully I gently came back and corrected the note, saving his life wink

Always nice to know your customers appreciate what you do.

Do you tune" directly from producer to user" or do you add a lot of rules or principles in between?

I am curious due to your good hearing affirmations. (I mean justness wise, I read your tinnitus problem, a friend technician does have the same he did get riding his motorcycle with wind noise in the ears, anyway he believe that and doctors seem to agree)

Does your good justness sense impacted the way you tune immediately or after some time?

Regards
Regards
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 04:33 AM

Well, yes, Gary.
The reality of it is that this is a dozen or so guys each with our own not so well hidden agendas flapping our gums inconsequentialy. None of us with the power to change anything.

Hardly a blinding revelation but occasionally something interesting or funny turns up and it gives some very valuable insight regarding how governments work.

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 08:18 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.


Congrats! However, without a control, there's now way to attribute that response to the temperament chosen.... just sayin' cool

Ron Koval
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 08:30 AM

I for one use Google agenda.

Suit me well
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 09:05 AM

Jim,

May I assume you tuned the piano to VTST-II?

Victorian Tears and Swooning Temperament
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 11:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.


With your new regulations on health care, may be piano tuning can be made free for depressive people.

Take care anyway, as one customer wanted to commit suicide after an unison slipped, hopefully I gently came back and corrected the note, saving his life wink

Always nice to know your customers appreciate what you do.

Do you tune" directly from producer to user" or do you add a lot of rules or principles in between?

I am curious due to your good hearing affirmations. (I mean justness wise, I read your tinnitus problem, a friend technician does have the same he did get riding his motorcycle with wind noise in the ears, anyway he believe that and doctors seem to agree)

Does your good justness sense impacted the way you tune immediately or after some time?

Regards
Regards


Thank you, Isaac.

If I understand you correctly, yes, I tune "from producer to user." But, I use an ETD more as something to stare at while I'm working some of the time, maybe as more of an affirmation than a guide......when I use it.

When I contracted the tinnitus, I was concerned that I would no longer be able to even sing, let alone tune pianos anymore. When I was singing in a group, I would ask my neighbors to not hesitate and let me know if I was off pitch, because I wasn't sure. After several years, it became obvious to me that I was able to compensate; as a matter of fact, I was reputed for having solid intonation.

I still had a problem tuning by the conventional aural method because I had the interfering reference pitch of the ringing in my ears to confute listening to high partials.

In steps Mr. Ron Koval, RPT. smile

Via long distance - Chicago to San Diego - he instructed me in the technique of listening for the sweet spot in the fundamental vibration. I am living proof that it works, and I feel it works better than the conventional method; it seems to me there is a narrower band of tolerance this way. IMO, it is because the harmonic progression has to be in relatively perfect alignment for the change in timbre to occur. This is only with regard to unisons and octaves, of course. Intervals were never a problem.

I am forever indebted to Ron for giving me a way back to my craft.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in the last question.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.


Congrats! However, without a control, there's now way to attribute that response to the temperament chosen.... just sayin' cool

Ron Koval


My control is out of control... wink

Welllll....

By my ETD, my temperament was closer in most respects to ET than the one you posted that you like to use. Not that what I tuned was better (I'm going to try yours out on my piano before I do it on a customer's), that is merely where it measured.

My m.o. these days is listen, then look (as a check).
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Jim,

May I assume you tuned the piano to VTST-II?

Victorian Tears and Swooning Temperament



Nah, I stand by my SGET VII

(Sounds Good Equal Temperament) wink
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
I had another customer's eyes well up with tears of joy after I finished tuning her piano this afternoon, so despite all of this brouhaha, I'm left to conclude that whatever I'm doing is right, at least, by my customers.



Edit to add: Same customer emailed me a little while ago: "Just finished playing the piano for 1 1/2 hours after you worked your magic. Never sounded this beautiful. Merci!"

First-time customer, back in the US two years after living in France for 10, brought their French market Yamaha G2 back to the US with them.


With your new regulations on health care, may be piano tuning can be made free for depressive people.

Take care anyway, as one customer wanted to commit suicide after an unison slipped, hopefully I gently came back and corrected the note, saving his life wink

Always nice to know your customers appreciate what you do.

Do you tune" directly from producer to user" or do you add a lot of rules or principles in between?

I am curious due to your good hearing affirmations. (I mean justness wise, I read your tinnitus problem, a friend technician does have the same he did get riding his motorcycle with wind noise in the ears, anyway he believe that and doctors seem to agree)

Does your good justness sense impacted the way you tune immediately or after some time?

Regards
Regards


Thank you, Isaac.

If I understand you correctly, yes, I tune "from producer to user." But, I use an ETD more as something to stare at while I'm working some of the time, maybe as more of an affirmation than a guide......when I use it.

When I contracted the tinnitus, I was concerned that I would no longer be able to even sing, let alone tune pianos anymore. When I was singing in a group, I would ask my neighbors to not hesitate and let me know if I was off pitch, because I wasn't sure. After several years, it became obvious to me that I was able to compensate; as a matter of fact, I was reputed for having solid intonation.

I still had a problem tuning by the conventional aural method because I had the interfering reference pitch of the ringing in my ears to confute listening to high partials.

In steps Mr. Ron Koval, RPT. smile

Via long distance - Chicago to San Diego - he instructed me in the technique of listening for the sweet spot in the fundamental vibration. I am living proof that it works, and I feel it works better than the conventional method; it seems to me there is a narrower band of tolerance this way. IMO, it is because the harmonic progression has to be in relatively perfect alignment for the change in timbre to occur. This is only with regard to unisons and octaves, of course. Intervals were never a problem.

I am forever indebted to Ron for giving me a way back to my craft.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean in the last question.


Thank you Jim I will expand later but you answered my questions.

What I could add is that the sweet spot itself have some thickness, or largeness, if you prefer. It is a foundation more than a final product, but yes it may be enough.

Then tuning "only" the fundamental is how other and myself seem to apprehend many tunings heard on Internet. (the ones from Ron as well for what I could hear).

So you deal with the available energy, and allows your musical ear (the spell checker state "magic" wink to do the rest.

You may be agree that something is flawed, or does not work well with anyone, in the usual manner listening (unison & to octave , & 5ths, why not?) is explained and learned.

I will write more later.

Thank you for answering.
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/20/13 11:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

In steps Mr. Ron Koval, RPT. smile

Via long distance - Chicago to San Diego - he instructed me in the technique of listening for the sweet spot in the fundamental vibration.



Then tuning "only" the fundamental is how other and myself seem to apprehend many tunings heard on Internet. (the ones from Ron as well for what I could hear).






A correction - I'm not an RPT...

Now to the unison tuning thing - maybe there's a difference "across the pond", but I can think of two teaching-clients that would respond to the tunings of unisons that Isaac has posted with "that's interesting, but could you finish tuning the unisons before you go???"

Seriously, they check each note looking for any slight motion - very similar to George Winston, who will leave mutes pointing at the notes that aren't dead-on, so they can be fixed at intermission. So for techs in America, it's probably safer to tune solid, dead-on unisons; though I'm sure other techs have a client base that appreciates something else!

Ron Koval
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 01:17 AM

Sorry, Ron, I assumed...
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 01:56 AM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

In steps Mr. Ron Koval, RPT. smile

Via long distance - Chicago to San Diego - he instructed me in the technique of listening for the sweet spot in the fundamental vibration.



Then tuning "only" the fundamental is how other and myself seem to apprehend many tunings heard on Internet. (the ones from Ron as well for what I could hear).






A correction - I'm not an RPT...

Now to the unison tuning thing - maybe there's a difference "across the pond", but I can think of two teaching-clients that would respond to the tunings of unisons that Isaac has posted with "that's interesting, but could you finish tuning the unisons before you go???"

Seriously, they check each note looking for any slight motion - very similar to George Winston, who will leave mutes pointing at the notes that aren't dead-on, so they can be fixed at intermission. So for techs in America, it's probably safer to tune solid, dead-on unisons; though I'm sure other techs have a client base that appreciates something else!

Ron Koval


Totally missed and I doubt you tune for George Winston..

For what record. ? did he cry of joy by listening ?

I I'd not want to say so publicly but we had some exchange on unison subject, hot spot and it was... many many years ago. (listen to attack energy to locate the coupling moment at large) You tested and did not like the opening of unison,(tuned from both sides to the center string) but you seem to have get what is mean by "clean spot"

Nice you use some of that to help others and that it was helpfull (I guess I send you that mail after listening to your video "how to tune an unison, if you recall correctly, are you ?)

Dead on does not mean hard. Far from there. Of course Jazz artists will ask for percussion enhanced and will point any moaning, some are very sensitive to that.

I am sure Jim does not tune with a hard tone, for instance. More nuances and more dynamics when the tone is not.

Now on poor pianos, if you cannot voice them or if they cannot be made better, tune hard, that will give a little power to pianos that have none.

Now I certainly do not have similar musical taste as you Ron Koval, nor my customers,

I will send you a post I received of someone you helped (as you are one of the 'tuning master' for all DIY here) and who also find that tuning broadcasted on pianoforte you gave the link piano uncomfortable and hard. (That may be only because of your non understanding of what is ET tuning, possibly the piano have yet that hard tone as it happens on old Forte, then a good ET (or whatever, but it works also with ET) would have made the piano more musical.



If you cannot hear what it is about and if your customers are pleased with hard unisons let's be it. Do not try to come using that to Europe, you will be obliged to learn. to tune.

Bad taste. Put me out of those discussions it is only useful for so little persons...

As someone wrote me "do not mind some think they know anything better, they have been conditioned to think that way so you cannot avoid that"






Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 04:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Cinnamonbear
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
[...] The issue is really about what is right or wrong, legally, in society and business practice. [...]


Dear Mark Davis,

First of all, I appreciate your posts, even though I think you bend the nail too hard over to the ET side of things. wink

But, second of all, let me get very goofy here and say that if I am reading "life" right--that which is "right or wrong, legally," has more to do with a whole bunch of convoluted definitions which have very little to do with actual right or wrong than they do with actual moral judgement, which is much more organic than definitions. As such, Truth is rarely found, legally speaking. (That said, "Court" will often get to truth, thank God, and would that "government" were taken to "court" more often! smile Personally, I'm not against "Court" to bring out truth, but I think life is larger and more robust than what anyone can find by doing things "legally." "Right" and "Wrong" are absolutes, and is the better standard, IMHO. And, I don't think ET or UT are moral absolutes, though I do think judging unisons could fall into a "yes" or "no" standard... grin )

--Andy


Hello Andy

Thanks for your post.

I admit to writing in passion and in haste to often rather than in peace of mind and thoughtfully.
I trust I will learn to put the latter in to practice.

I was not saying that tuning ET or UT was a moral issue.

What I was trying to say, though I did not say it, is, their should be consequence to and for anyone that exercises bad/wrong business practice, such as lieing and slander of others, whether it is a fellow in the our trade or a neighbour and or stealing etc...

Anyway I know that we must all give answer for ourselves, and one should do what is good and right towards our fellows in the trade and to our neighbour. What someone else does is upon their own head ultimately.

However in saying what I have just said, if I know of a tuner, or any other person, that is without a shadow of a doubt dishonest and a thief, I will warn people about them, where and when necessary.

Anyway there is much more that can be said, but I do not wish to continue with this for a number of reasons. The first is, this is not the thread to do it.

Thank you,

Best regards,
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 04:34 AM

Andy,

I do prefer ET, but I do not have a problem with someone tuning a UT.

My opinion really comes down to this, if someone would like me to tune a UT, I will. It is as simple as that for me.

Tuning is actually relatively simple and straight forward when one knows and understands it and has had sufficient experience in it.

The other side is, what we all need to get real and honest about is, that tuning with an ETD is even simpler.

So in order for me to tune a UT, I have a number of options, 1. Use an ETD only, 2. Use an ETD for the temperament and tune the rest of the piano aurally, and 3. Tune aurally from start to finish.

For me only points 1 and 2 will be options for me. Why? I am not prepared to learn a variety of UT's to tune them aurally from start to finish. However in saying this, I must remind ourselves that there is no problem to tune ET or an UT temperament with an ETD and get excellent results.

Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 05:01 AM

I better qualify before I find myself in hot water again.

I see I am getting into the subjective, personal and preferance thing, so I will just say, there are ETD tuners and then there are ETD tuners!

There is obviously more that one can say, but I will leave it at that.

Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 06:50 AM

This aspect reminds me of a distinction somebody made with regard to the use of hand held digital calculators when they were introduced on the 1970's.

He divided the world into those who did the calculation in their head or on paper and then checked it electronically and those who used the calculator first and then checked it the old fashioned way.

That was in the days when most people had the ability to make calculations without electronic help.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 08:54 AM

I do think that any and everyone has a right to tune whatever temperament they want to and are entitled to their own opinion whether or not that that may fly in the face of logic or general consensus.

It is not a matter of a standard of tuning temperament as it is a matter of the standard of one's work.

I think that with the advent of ETD's, and living in an electronic/digital/technological age, one needs to either get with it or live with what you cannot do, especially with regards to tuning.

One has to look at it from a business/competitor point of view too. Match your competitor or beat them. Is that not the game that is really being played here.

I mean, really, why should one loose a customer for not wanting to, or for not being able to tune ET or a UT? Get rid of personal preference and get a cut into your competitors market.

Then you will soon find out that it is not about a " temperament standard" but about business.

Is that not what business is about? Having the edge due to being one step ahead and that, hopefully, coupled with excellence?

One thing I have learned, there is always room for someone who is going to be honest and do a good job.

Posted by: adamp88

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 09:47 AM

Here's a question for you, Mark (and I don't mean this to be accusatory at all, so forgive me if it comes across as such): Let's say you use the ETD to tune the UT's temperament. How do you know if you've tuned it correctly?

I ask because, at least in my experience, when using an ETD to tune an ET temperament, I always end up making at least a couple minor adjustments after aurally checking the temperament. Unless you have a good understanding of what the intervals are supposed to sound like in the chosen UT, how would you know that you have set that temperament correctly?
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 10:28 AM

Good question Adam.

Well, so much for the ETD tuners!

I am glad I tune aurally in general.

So then we need to ask ourselves what are those strictly ETD tuners really doing?

I have more thoughts on this but I think that I will leave it there for the moment.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 10:52 AM


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: bkw58
[quote=Mark Davis]Thinking of the issue of "Should there be a Tuning Temperament Standard", it suddenly occurred to me, that that is not the issue.

//SNIP//

In relation to the specifics of the thread topic, the PTG does not mandate ET as the professional standard of doing business. Moreover, even though A440 is referred to as "standard pitch," it is not so treated either. This is wisdom. In an industry that is both arts and science, to require such standardization - legal or otherwise - would stymie creativity, not to mention business.


Yes, bkw58, I quite agree with you when you refer to "arts", not quite when it is supposed to be science.

For instance, ETD's manufacturers do mention Equal Temperament but... should not they respond to an official standard before they can sell...(?) Four years ago Robert Scott was saying that they (ETDS ET) are all "variations" from 12 root of two...

Cui prodest?

Regards, a.c.
.


Agreed. The science needs a frame of reference.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 11:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I do think that any and everyone has a right to tune whatever temperament they want to and are entitled to their own opinion whether or not that that may fly in the face of logic or general consensus.

It is not a matter of a standard of tuning temperament as it is a matter of the standard of one's work.

I think that with the advent of ETD's, and living in an electronic/digital/technological age, one needs to either get with it or live with what you cannot do, especially with regards to tuning.

One has to look at it from a business/competitor point of view too. Match your competitor or beat them. Is that not the game that is really being played here.

I mean, really, why should one loose a customer for not wanting to, or for not being able to tune ET or a UT? Get rid of personal preference and get a cut into your competitors market.

Then you will soon find out that it is not about a " temperament standard" but about business.

Is that not what business is about? Having the edge due to being one step ahead and that, hopefully, coupled with excellence?

One thing I have learned, there is always room for someone who is going to be honest and do a good job.


Mark,

I've never seen a more logical or fair minded post than this by you or anyone else on this subject! Thank you. I tune unequal temperaments because there is a demand for them here. It has long been a local preference and standard. I could not get half of the work I do unless I did.

Some people seem to have never understood that. Madison, Wisconsin is known for innovation and progressive trends and thinking. What I do has always tied in with that. Instead of simply taking what one book or one person has said or advocated, I have taken ideas from many sources over the years.

I have a natural inclination to question authority and to pick apart what may be written in a book, find shortcomings, contradictions and compare with other sources.

As for Adam's remark, I agree. If I use an ETD calculated program, I do so because it is a practical, convenient and stress reducing tool to accomplish what I already have in mind as a goal. The results are never perfect, only an approximation. Therefore, if anyone simply plugs in none ET figures to such a program but does not already know what the final results should be, it is more or less a stab in the dark.

I never tried to force or even encourage anyone to tune pianos in non-equal temperaments. Yet, what I have found plenty of has been people trying to force me not to. SO, for me to finally say to them that none of their persuasions are going to affect what I do has been taken as "vehement defense of UT". It has always seemed to me that the vehemence has come from from those who advocate one standard and one standard only.

I always had found a parallel with that in the English only standard for the USA. Most of those who insist upon it cannot actually and adequately come up to the standard they advocate but seek to prevent the use of any other language anywhere and everywhere. I don't tell them that they should learn another language (even though if they did, it would surely help to improve the only one they know) but I do defend my right and privilege to speak, read and write in other languages as I choose to under any given circumstance.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 11:48 AM

Hello Bill

I am glad that you and I are able to agree on something, as for the language thing, rest assured, we disagree.

However, i will say that you are entitled to your own opinion.

Thank you,
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 12:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT


I always had found a parallel with that in the English only standard for the USA. Most of those who insist upon it cannot actually and adequately come up to the standard they advocate but seek to prevent the use of any other language anywhere and everywhere. I don't tell them that they should learn another language (even though if they did, it would surely help to improve the only one they know) but I do defend my right and privilege to speak, read and write in other languages as I choose to under any given circumstance.


Bill, just a thought?

How far do you think you will get with this thinking, in, let's say, Iran?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 12:09 PM

I have never before heard anyone comparing Madison Wisconsin to Iran.

Last time I was in MadCity, I dined at a restaurant which had a menu in French. No big deal. The prices were listed in $-US, which was very helpful. I'm not good with Euros.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 12:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT

I always had found a parallel with that in the English only standard for the USA. Most of those who insist upon it cannot actually and adequately come up to the standard they advocate but seek to prevent the use of any other language anywhere and everywhere.


Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
I have never before heard anyone comparing Madison Wisconsin to Iran.

Last time I was in MadCity, I dined at a restaurant which had a menu in French. No big deal. The prices were listed in $-US, which was very helpful. I'm not good with Euros.


As per usual, you twist everything.

It must have something to do with your Jesuit linked back ground!?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 01:22 PM

Talk about twisted reasoning.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 01:54 PM

Ok, let us talk about it.

Firstly, how do you get Madison Wisconsin, when Bill clearly says "the USA"?

What you are doing is deflecting Bill's anti American sentiment.

It is clearly seen in what he has said, and you are very well aware of it.

The venom and lies is seen in this, "Most of those who insist upon it cannot actually and adequately come up to the standard they advocate but seek to prevent the use of any other language anywhere and everywhere.".

What Bill is saying is this. "You stupid Americans"and later he vaunts his superiority. Bill's arrogance is brazen and inexcusable!

Who is preventing who from learning what language? and why belittle and mock your fellow American? Anywhere and Everywhere? What an outright lie!

So, we then must ask, why such a question as this, "I always had found a parallel with that in the English only standard for the USA."? What is wrong with a standard of English if you are an English founded and based country? Why the anti?

What is it's basis? Is it even true? Why make such a statement?

So what I was saying is this, Let Bill take his and your logic to Iran, Syria or one of those Islamic, Indian country and go tell them that you are anti their language standard!
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 02:24 PM

Since you are unable to comprehend what Bill has written, I am not about to 'translate' it for you. It is clear as it is written.

The only thing worth pointing out is a short quote from Bill:

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
Madison, Wisconsin is known for innovation and progressive trends and thinking. What I do has always tied in with that. Instead of simply taking what one book or one person has said or advocated, I have taken ideas from many sources over the years.

Please try some careful reading of his posting.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 02:29 PM

Just to be clear, the United States of American has neither an Official Religion, nor an Official Language.

Yes, it certainly does separate us from Iran.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 02:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Just to be clear, the United States of American has neither an Official Religion, nor an Official Language.

Yes, it certainly does separate us from Iran.


Let us just re-read Bill's statement, and let him speak for himself!

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT

I always had found a parallel with that in the English only standard for the USA. Most of those who insist upon it cannot actually and adequately come up to the standard they advocate but seek to prevent the use of any other language anywhere and everywhere. I don't tell them that they should learn another language (even though if they did, it would surely help to improve the only one they know) but I do defend my right and privilege to speak, read and write in other languages as I choose to under any given circumstance.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 02:47 PM

Mr. Davis,

Let me bring you up to date. There is no "official" language in the USA. There are periodic attempts to make it thus, however. Within the last month, there has been some lip flapping in Wisconsin to make it the official State language. Pity.

Despite Wisconsin's glorious and progressive past, the State is experiencing a self-identity crisis. Pity.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 03:11 PM

Ok. Mark, I see you are very enthusiastic about many things. However, let me make something abundantly clear.

There are things we do not discuss on Piano World.
among these things are religion and politics. Verboten. Taboo. Forbidden. They cause hard feelings, flames, etc. We are not here for that. If that is what you wish to discuss, there are many venues available for such discussion. This is not one of them.

This is not about agreement or disagreement with you. It is simply a matter of enforcing the policy of Piano World.

So please, stop.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 04:02 PM

I do hope that the wall being built is for containment.
Posted by: Zeno Wood

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 05:18 PM

Check please.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 07:36 PM

Why ain't all them ferners learn to talk American like us? = Why doesn't everybody just tune ET? They all do about as well as those who only want one language spoken in the USA speak English.

Mark, you have a serious problem taking what other people say at face value. You wrote a fine statement with which I totally agreed. You should accept that for what it is.

The USA has never had an official language. It may seem unbelievable to those outside it and even inside it if they don't already know that. English only became the most commonly used language here because of circumstances. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution are written in English, yes but there never has been either a law nor Constitutional provision that declared English as the official language.

My point, of course is that if English were actually made to be the the only language permitted to be spoken or written, it would most likely degenerate to the point that whatever anyone said or wrote would be "English". It is already happening with the way that young people use shorthand in text messages. They have invented their own form of the language and can't write at college level anymore. I know because I have tutored a lot of them.

The same parallel has happened with temperament. Since there is only one temperament, whatever anyone does is ET. They sure do get hopping mad if you tell them it isn't really ET, though. As long as they meant it to be ET, believed it to be ET and tried to tune, ET, it's ET. If you show them why it is not ET and prove to them that it isn't, you are trying to shove UT down their throats. If you try to show them another way to tune ET that might actually work better, you are an egoist who is only trying to promote your own business.

So, after a while, I just start ignoring that kind of resistance. I have many ways I can help someone learn to tune ET more surely and easily. I can also introduce anyone who is interested to the beauty of non-equal temperaments. Just being able to tune one non-ET will help you to understand ET better and get better results.

That is why I participate on here and I have helped dozens of people pass their PTG Tuning Exam. Many others have also found the beauty of WT. If you have any other opinion of me or motivation for mentioning my name, you are not likely to get a response from me about it but you can say anything you want, of course. It usually ends up just being free advertising for me.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 07:51 PM

Here in Oakland, there are over 140 different languages and dialects spoken. There are people on my block who were born in at least 4 different continents.

I have never had anyone demonstrate to me the beauty of any unequal temperament. Some of the temperaments that people claim are one temperament or another are pretty much indistinguishable from equal temperament, but the vast majority of them are no temperament at all, they are just plain out of tune.
Posted by: Silverwood Pianos

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 09:26 PM

Just so we have this straight here on the tech forum.

Mark’s comments are not permitted but the policy of Pianoworld is to let the rest of the 10 pages of this thread, mostly garbage postings about a lot of nothing, the deliberate flaming, insulting, arguing, posturing and the continuous trolling, done mostly by non-techs, apparently this is to be permitted.

Astonishing.

There is no reason to wonder why this tech forum has turned into the kindergarten of the tech forums on the internet.
Here is a quote from the purpose of the Tuner/Technician Forum.

This is taken from my recent thread “Enough is enough”.

Quote:
Piano tuner-technicians, use this forum to discuss tuning, repairs, restorations, etc.
Also, the place to post technical questions about the piano.


Originally Posted By: Ken Knapp


This is a place for the tuners and technicians to discuss amongst themselves methods and techniques.

Yes, non-professionals can participate, but challenging and arguing with the professionals is BEYOND the intention of the forum. In fact, arguing is beyond the intent of any of the forums.

There is another forum on PW I avoid at all costs because many who participate seem intent on proving to everyone else how great they are. Some may indeed be truly great, but you can cut through the egos with a knife. I sometimes see that here, although not as bad.

So professionals, act professional. And non-professionals, let's remember you are not here to be adversarial, you are here to LEARN from the pro's. That is why this forum is here. If anyone doesn't like that, then take it up with Frank Baxter.


This quoted part from Ken Knapp is a wonderful sentiment to have. The tragic part is this aforementioned sentiment is neither observed nor enforced on a continuing basis.

Ken, your posting reveals that this entire thread has not been read.
Sorry but to moderate one objectionable posting out of this thread while leaving many other objectionable postings in this thread is not moderation, that is firefighting.


Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 09:53 PM

Obviously, Mr. Silverwood, you were not able to read the inflammatory diatribe posted by Mr. Davis referencing religion in America, before it was deleted by Ken.

Pity.

It was so enlightening as to his viewpoints and for all to see.

Ken, would it be best to add a posting with your signature line, rather than within a deleted posting above the signature of Mr. Davis?
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/21/13 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek

If you cannot hear what it is about and if your customers are pleased with hard unisons let's be it. Do not try to come using that to Europe, you will be obliged to learn. to tune.


Let's all get back to tuning....

Maybe it is a language thing... If by hard you mean clean, or focused, then yes - That's what's appreciated and expected around here... And the above is probably the best explanation for why there shouldn't be a standard for temperament - we can't even agree on how to tune one note, much less a whole bunch!!

I think we all serve the market we find ourselves tuning for - or we create the market that fits our style. Just as there are many types of pianos, many types of hammers, many voicings, there doesn't seem to be one way of tuning that fits the whole world - I for one, have no problem with techs choosing to specialize in one type of tuning, as long as there isn't any claim that their way is the best or only way to satisfy the needs of the wide variety of clients of the world...

Jim, you should be proud - look at the length of this thread!!

Ron Koval
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:02 AM


[quote=Bill Bremmer RPT
The USA has never had an official language. It may seem unbelievable to those outside it and even inside it if they don't already know that.
[/quote]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_English
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:27 AM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner

I for one, have no problem with techs choosing to specialize in one type of tuning, as long as there isn't any claim that their way is the best or only way to satisfy the needs of the wide variety of clients of the world...



I see you have changed your position Ron.

There is nothing wrong with someone thinking and claiming that something is better than something else.

My claim is that ET is better than UT for the modern day piano, and that is why it is the standard upon the big concert stages and for Steinway.

Such as, is the Aston Martin vehicle a better one than a Subaru vehicle? Of course it is and for a number of reasons. Evidence speaks for itself, but for some people they refuse to acknowledge the evidence and that is a problem.

As for me I think that there is far more weight behind ET being the standard than UT.

Does anyone know what the Chicago School of piano technology is teaching on the issue of temperaments? What the standard is? The place of UT in modern day piano technology?

Adam?

Does anyone know what North Bennett street school, and others are teaching on the issue?
Posted by: Chris Storch

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:42 AM

Mark,

North Bennet teaches historical temperaments for a very short time, as an introduction into the process of tempering intervals. There was a Pythagorean, Werkmeister, and maybe one other. Vallotti-Young if I remember correctly.

They were very pragmatic about it. The instructors were looking to get us ramped up to Equal Temperament as quickly as possible.

If a student was interested in historical temperaments, the instructors pretty much pointed us to Jorgensen. They indicated that the request to tune historical temperaments occurs only rarely. Peter Serkin flies through town from time to time, and everyone brushes up on 1/7 comma.

Hope this helps,
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 08:48 AM

Thank you very much Chris.

It does help.

Regards,
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:01 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

By my ETD, my temperament was closer in most respects to ET than the one you posted that you like to use. Not that what I tuned was better (I'm going to try yours out on my piano before I do it on a customer's), that is merely where it measured.

My m.o. these days is listen, then look (as a check).


Unless you've changed your ETD, I don't think you can use it to tune a mild well temperament - I used something similar for years the same way you do - that's the best way; making sure you haven't gone awry, but primarily following your tuning checks...

Look into the documentation, I believe the accuracy is only +-1 cent; giving that ETD a "zone" of in-tune, but not a real specific target to be able to follow. While the display may seem to give enough precision, plus or minus a cent is just a little too wide for really fine piano work - unless you are using it as you do - aural tuning, with visual backup.

Ron Koval
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Originally Posted By: RonTuner

I for one, have no problem with techs choosing to specialize in one type of tuning, as long as there isn't any claim that their way is the best or only way to satisfy the needs of the wide variety of clients of the world...



I see you have changed your position Ron.

There is nothing wrong with someone thinking and claiming that something is better than something else.

My claim is that ET is better than UT for the modern day piano, and that is why it is the standard upon the big concert stages and for Steinway.

Such as, is the Aston Martin vehicle a better one than a Subaru vehicle? Of course it is and for a number of reasons. Evidence speaks for itself, but for some people they refuse to acknowledge the evidence and that is a problem.

As for me I think that there is far more weight behind ET being the standard than UT.


No change - Should everyone then be expected to drive an Astin Martin? What is better for you and your clients in your locale might not be what is better for Bill and his clients in his locale - that's what I meant - I don't think there is a universal "best" way to set the temperament that will meet the needs of all piano owners or artists.

As for more weight behind ET as the standard... we're right back to "which ET" is the standard... plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents??? Cause that's what's passing for ET all over!

Ron Koval
Posted by: Jbyron

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:19 AM

In order for there to be a standard, the customer should decide. The problem is most piano owners don't have a clue as to what a temperament is. They trust the professional to know how to tune their piano.
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Jbyron
In order for there to be a standard, the customer should decide. The problem is most piano owners don't have a clue as to what a temperament is. They trust the professional to know how to tune their piano.

This is very true!

The piano owner responds to how the finished tuning "sounds." That is very valid and "cents" are much more important to a budget than to a piano.

Isn't it more about how the tuner listens to the individual piano rather than apply a fixed 'standard' to it?
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:44 AM

All:

How can something delibrately and variably unequal possibly be a standard?

But that is not the question posed by the Title of this Topic. And Ron does make a good point:

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
.....

As for more weight behind ET as the standard... we're right back to "which ET" is the standard... plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents??? Cause that's what's passing for ET all over!

Ron Koval


I can't help but consider a variable tolerance of ET is what makes various UTs acceptable. Consider your own words, Ron: "plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents???" Is this cents from a UT or from THE ET? As an aside, I tuned a Bach spinet yesterday. I do not think a clinical ET is possible on many pianos.

But lets face it. We compare UTs to ET, not to just intonation. ET is the standard. Nothing else is workable. The question is how far and in what direction can we go from the standard before it becomes unacceptable, and is there an area where it first becomes preferable? Imagine a piano tuned to Bb brass intonation! It would be similar to reverse well, yet people enjoy brass bands.
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Minnesota Marty
Originally Posted By: Jbyron
In order for there to be a standard, the customer should decide. The problem is most piano owners don't have a clue as to what a temperament is. They trust the professional to know how to tune their piano.

This is very true!

The piano owner responds to how the finished tuning "sounds." ...


Yes, and so should the tuner. An arpeggio with a snatch of The Entertainer is great but ditties from the 3Bs to Mod is better, but preferably not all in the key of C. smile
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 11:06 AM

Interesting question, Jeff. On one end of the spectrum is the quality piano, fully capable of receiving ET. On the other end, the cheap that seems only capable of receiving is compromise. And the gradation between...
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 12:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Jbyron
The problem is most piano owners don't have a clue as to what a temperament is.

As I mentioned previously, I agree with this completely.

However, as a pianist, I would also submit the following:

The problem is most piano tuners don't have a clue as to the difference between a harmonic minor and a relative minor key, or even the musician's response to key color.

It is possible that a musician hears "ET" as a starting point, rather than the bull's eye in the target. However, the majority of professional musicians are not pianists. What is 'heard' is a totally different concept of intonation. (This has been discussed before.)

As I understand it, the mastery of ET is the starting point for a fixed pitch instrument, probably the 'standard' starting point. But, that does not preclude the study of, and mastery of, other tuning concepts. Does the PTG have a "Thou shalt not" policy in reference to other temperaments, a "my way, or the highway" attitude? Starting point? - Yes. End of the line? - ???

Just because one can meet the 'standards' of a driving test, is there a reason to not master other driving techniques and develop one's skills?
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 12:23 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Originally Posted By: RonTuner

I for one, have no problem with techs choosing to specialize in one type of tuning, as long as there isn't any claim that their way is the best or only way to satisfy the needs of the wide variety of clients of the world...



I see you have changed your position Ron.

There is nothing wrong with someone thinking and claiming that something is better than something else.

My claim is that ET is better than UT for the modern day piano, and that is why it is the standard upon the big concert stages and for Steinway.

Such as, is the Aston Martin vehicle a better one than a Subaru vehicle? Of course it is and for a number of reasons. Evidence speaks for itself, but for some people they refuse to acknowledge the evidence and that is a problem.

As for me I think that there is far more weight behind ET being the standard than UT.


No change - Should everyone then be expected to drive an Astin Martin? What is better for you and your clients in your locale might not be what is better for Bill and his clients in his locale - that's what I meant - I don't think there is a universal "best" way to set the temperament that will meet the needs of all piano owners or artists.

As for more weight behind ET as the standard... we're right back to "which ET" is the standard... plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents??? Cause that's what's passing for ET all over!

Ron Koval


The context of what i was speaking about was that there is plenty of evidence that the Aston Martin is a better product.

I also think that there is much to argue for, let us say, for example, what is good for a Steinway is good for a Wurlitzer spinet.

So, if I put on a Steinway ET on a Wurlitzer spinet, my client might start thinking that her Wurlitzer sounds like a Steinway!?

Why give your client something that is only suitable for a beast of piano when you can give them the best!?

Let us consider a weighty matter now, please consider the following,


To many of the greatest pianists of our time, one man was critically important: Franz Mohr, former Chief Concert Technician of Steinway & Sons for more than a quarter of a century.

As the close colleague of legendary musicians such as Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, Glenn Gould, Rudolf Serkin and many others, Franz Mohr attended to their Steinway instruments, making delicate adjustments that affect tone, balance, and other characteristics of sound. It was Mohr who enabled these virtuosos to fully realize their own, individual interpretative styles, and to fully realize their concept of tonal color. Franz Mohr directed the preparation and maintenance of all Steinway pianos provided for concert and artists' service throughout the world and was the technical advisor to technicians at 100 dealer locations where hundreds of Steinway pianos stand ready for concert use.

A master piano technician, Franz Mohr joined Steinway & Sons in New York City in 1962 as assistant to William Hupfer, then chief concert technician, whom he succeeded in 1968. Mr. Mohr learned piano building in Europe beginning in 1950 in Cologne, Germany. In 1956 he became a concert technician for a Steinway dealer in Dusseldorf, Germany, which maintains a large concert service. Six years later he and his family moved to New York.

Born in Duren, Germany, on September 27, 1927, he studied music at the Musikhochschule in Cologne and the Academy of Music in Detmold, Germany. He and his wife, Elizabeth, live in Lynbrook, New York. They have three children: a daughter, Ellen, and two sons, one of whom continues the family tradition by working at the Steinway factory in Long Island City as manager of Customer Service.

Mr. Mohr retired as chief concert technician of Steinway & Sons in 1992. Presently he is an active advisor and consultant to Steinway & Sons. He is also a well-known book author ("My Life with the Great Pianists" and "Backstage with Great Pianists" - German) and a brilliant speaker.

Please consider that he tuned for the greats, their very own pianos apart from the concert stage. He also Franz directed the preparation and maintenance of all Steinway pianos provided for concert and artists' service throughout the world and was the technical advisor to technicians at 100 dealer locations where hundreds of Steinway pianos stand ready for concert use.

I wonder what ET Franz Mohr tuned? Does anyone know?

Are you folks, you who are telling us another story, really so educated and are you that highfalutin to say, Franz Mohr, you dolt, you, Steinway and all the great artists just got it plain wrong, had no refined ear and just made a plain out right mess of things tuning ET?
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 12:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
So, if I put on a Steinway ET on a Wurlitzer spinet, my client might start thinking that her Wurlitzer sounds like a Steinway!?

Just how does "Steinway ET" differ from 'standard' ET? Did Mr. Mohr develop a "Steinway ET temperament?"

Do tell!
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 12:44 PM

If you read my post carefully, I to am asking what ET temperament he tuned, because he obviously pleased, and not only him, the other tuners under him, many of the greats.

It was Ron who brought up the different ET's thing.

My thoughts are that Franz more than likely tuned ET as we know it today, but I stand to correction. That is why I am asking if anyone knows.

But one thing is for certain, he only tuned ET and would have none of it with regards to UT.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 12:52 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
All:

How can something delibrately and variably unequal possibly be a standard?

But that is not the question posed by the Title of this Topic. And Ron does make a good point:

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
.....

As for more weight behind ET as the standard... we're right back to "which ET" is the standard... plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents??? Cause that's what's passing for ET all over!

Ron Koval


I can't help but consider a variable tolerance of ET is what makes various UTs acceptable. Consider your own words, Ron: "plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents???" Is this cents from a UT or from THE ET? As an aside, I tuned a Bach spinet yesterday. I do not think a clinical ET is possible on many pianos.

But lets face it. We compare UTs to ET, not to just intonation. ET is the standard. Nothing else is workable. The question is how far and in what direction can we go from the standard before it becomes unacceptable, and is there an area where it first becomes preferable? Imagine a piano tuned to Bb brass intonation! It would be similar to reverse well, yet people enjoy brass bands.
`

Excellent post Jeff!
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 01:02 PM

These definitions and discussions over the internet are useless, because what one technician calls ET in practice, is not what another would call it. Also, there are varying levels of understanding on how to implement this on the piano.

Theoretical ET is a very simple thing to grasp. We can all define it. However, it will never be implemented on a single piano in the world (to the precision of scientific instruments).

This is because the partial field of every real instrument varies.

So, beyond the theory of ET, there can be no standard because tunings need to fit the individual piano. To have a standard would require pianos to all conform to ISO standards and be made with synthetic, non-varying materials on CNC assembly lines.

The Franz Mohr discussion is silly. Of course he supported ET. He worked for the C&A division of Steinway in the mainstream of musical culture. Of course he also made variations in the aural implementation of that ET to achieve great aural tunings on his instruments, or he wouldn't have lasted.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 01:20 PM

I am no longer going to carry on with this discussion.

My wife has reminded me that I told a couple of folks that I would stay away from the contoversies on PW.

I have allowed myself to be carried away.

I have broken my word.

I would like to honour those to whom I said this to.

Cheers,
Posted by: Minnesota Marty

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 01:33 PM

Are you asking if TW is a Jesuit mole? You seem to have departed from that particular rant rather quickly.

I'm still waiting for a definition of a "Steinway ET".

I have performed on pianos tuned by Mr. Mohr and I would not classify them as "strict ET." Mr. Mohr was also very sensitive to the literature being performed.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 01:39 PM

MM, please read my post above.

We obviously were writing at the same time.

With regards to your post above, I will let you figure it.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 01:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
.....

Theoretical ET is a very simple thing to grasp. We can all define it. However, it will never be implemented on a single piano in the world (to the precision of scientific instruments).

.....


"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid, only within tolerance of a STANDARD. For tuning that standard can only be ET.

"A man's reach should exceed his grasp, else what is a Heaven for?" Robert Browning
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 02:41 PM

I actually agree with you here, UnrightTooner, and that's exactly what I was reinforcing in my above post.

But there's a difference between a theoretical standard, and a manufacturing standard, or a standard in practice. This is also what I was writing about in my above post.

As a result of the manufacturing variations in pianos, we cannot have a standard in practice for tuning - only a theoretical one. In practice, variations must be made to account for the variations in instruments.

These variations are much larger than what you alluded to here:

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid...


They are measurable variations that can be picked up on the simplest spectrum analyzer, and they have a measureable and audible impact in the practice of tuning.

So, I don't see any reason for such a heated argument on this. We already have a theoretical standard, and the variations on that, sensitive to the make of the instrument, are what create a great tuning.

As an aside, can someone explain to me what Bill Bremmer keeps talking about with his Reverse Well?
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner


Jim, you should be proud - look at the length of this thread!!

Ron Koval




Ehhhh....

Not really. Maybe if it was a different subject matter... wink

Lessee. List of things not to be discussed among friends:

Politics
Religion
Temperament


Okay, got it!
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Mark,

North Bennet teaches historical temperaments for a very short time, as an introduction into the process of tempering intervals. There was a Pythagorean, Werkmeister, and maybe one other. Vallotti-Young if I remember correctly.

They were very pragmatic about it. The instructors were looking to get us ramped up to Equal Temperament as quickly as possible.

If a student was interested in historical temperaments, the instructors pretty much pointed us to Jorgensen. They indicated that the request to tune historical temperaments occurs only rarely. Peter Serkin flies through town from time to time, and everyone brushes up on 1/7 comma.

Hope this helps,


I think this helps color perspective tremendously.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:20 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor

By my ETD, my temperament was closer in most respects to ET than the one you posted that you like to use. Not that what I tuned was better (I'm going to try yours out on my piano before I do it on a customer's), that is merely where it measured.

My m.o. these days is listen, then look (as a check).


Unless you've changed your ETD, I don't think you can use it to tune a mild well temperament - I used something similar for years the same way you do - that's the best way; making sure you haven't gone awry, but primarily following your tuning checks...

Look into the documentation, I believe the accuracy is only +-1 cent; giving that ETD a "zone" of in-tune, but not a real specific target to be able to follow. While the display may seem to give enough precision, plus or minus a cent is just a little too wide for really fine piano work - unless you are using it as you do - aural tuning, with visual backup.

Ron Koval


I haven't changed a thing on it.

Thanks!
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I actually agree with you here, UnrightTooner, and that's exactly what I was reinforcing in my above post.

But there's a difference between a theoretical standard, and a manufacturing standard, or a standard in practice. This is also what I was writing about in my above post.

As a result of the manufacturing variations in pianos, we cannot have a standard in practice for tuning - only a theoretical one. In practice, variations must be made to account for the variations in instruments.

These variations are much larger than what you alluded to here:

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid...


They are measurable variations that can be picked up on the simplest spectrum analyzer, and they have a measureable and audible impact in the practice of tuning.

So, I don't see any reason for such a heated argument on this. We already have a theoretical standard, and the variations on that, sensitive to the make of the instrument, are what create a great tuning.

As an aside, can someone explain to me what Bill Bremmer keeps talking about with his Reverse Well?


Words and... more words.

Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard. And you will be able to tune any other "variation" as well, depending on your own idea of what is going to sound better, more musical or more emotional.

If not, in order to talk about "standard" you need to refine your skills and learn how to draw beat-curves, all across the keyboard.

The first ET is impossible to tune, and (to me) it seems too easy - today - to take that model as a standard, so that... all kind of variations can be justified.

Yes, do take this as a challenge and let's see how many recordings we get! :-)

Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:24 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
All:

How can something delibrately and variably unequal possibly be a standard?

But that is not the question posed by the Title of this Topic. And Ron does make a good point:

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
.....

As for more weight behind ET as the standard... we're right back to "which ET" is the standard... plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents??? Cause that's what's passing for ET all over!

Ron Koval


I can't help but consider a variable tolerance of ET is what makes various UTs acceptable. Consider your own words, Ron: "plus or minus a cent, 2 cents, 3 cents???" Is this cents from a UT or from THE ET? As an aside, I tuned a Bach spinet yesterday. I do not think a clinical ET is possible on many pianos.

But lets face it. We compare UTs to ET, not to just intonation. ET is the standard. Nothing else is workable. The question is how far and in what direction can we go from the standard before it becomes unacceptable, and is there an area where it first becomes preferable? Imagine a piano tuned to Bb brass intonation! It would be similar to reverse well, yet people enjoy brass bands.


An excellent point it there about how UT's are measured in deviations from ET. That alone is an unconscious concession of ET being the standard.



Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 03:44 PM

>>"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid, only within tolerance of a STANDARD. For tuning that standard can only be ET. <<

Greetings,

Call ET the "standard" if you like, but the quantity of the equality is a quality of the definition, i.e. how close to theoretically perfect must a temperament be to be considered the standard? If it means consecutive interval speed rates progressing at less than .1% deviation, none of us are tuning ET. If it means no third more than 15 cents wide, then there are quite a few of us tuning ET.

I think that "style" is more descriptive of what ET is than "standard". Maybe the debate is about whether there is a style of tuning that is a standard, since given the tolerances in use for commercial work, it will be difficult to define ET clinically enough to use as a standard. Claims of superiority of one style or another must be answered by the performers that use them, and my experience is that UT's create a more musical experience for the majority of my customers. This is why there is an equation of temperament=money involved for a number of us tuners. As long as I am the only one tuning UTs here, I have a clientele that is loyal to me, a good size clientele of professional users. Many epiphanies among customers along the way, and that has always been worth something to me.

Some synonyms: standard, generic, norm,guideline, benchmark, yardstick, etc. ET can be, and is, all of these. However, standard and superior are not the same thing. One is a description, the other a value judgement.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 05:36 PM

+1

Well said, Ed.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 05:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Ed Foote
>>"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid, only within tolerance of a STANDARD. For tuning that standard can only be ET. <<

Greetings,

Call ET the "standard" if you like, but the quantity of the equality is a quality of the definition, i.e. how close to theoretically perfect must a temperament be to be considered the standard? If it means consecutive interval speed rates progressing at less than .1% deviation, none of us are tuning ET. If it means no third more than 15 cents wide, then there are quite a few of us tuning ET.

I think that "style" is more descriptive of what ET is than "standard". Maybe the debate is about whether there is a style of tuning that is a standard, since given the tolerances in use for commercial work, it will be difficult to define ET clinically enough to use as a standard. Claims of superiority of one style or another must be answered by the performers that use them, and my experience is that UT's create a more musical experience for the majority of my customers. This is why there is an equation of temperament=money involved for a number of us tuners. As long as I am the only one tuning UTs here, I have a clientele that is loyal to me, a good size clientele of professional users. Many epiphanies among customers along the way, and that has always been worth something to me.

Some synonyms: standard, generic, norm,guideline, benchmark, yardstick, etc. ET can be, and is, all of these. However, standard and superior are not the same thing. One is a description, the other a value judgement.


Hi Ed,

You wrote: ..."Call ET the "standard" if you like, but the quantity of the equality is a quality of the definition, i.e. how close to theoretically perfect must a temperament be to be considered the standard?..."...

I am sorry, Ed, there is a point (in your premise) that might confuse the reader: what you cite as "theoretically perfect" could never be put into practice. In fact, we cannot say that the first ET is "perfect", and this may explain why it "sounds" so phoney.

..."I think that "style" is more descriptive of what ET is than "standard"."...

Yes, that might be true, since nobody could ever tune 12 root of two.

..."Maybe the debate is about whether there is a style of tuning that is a standard, since given the tolerances in use for commercial work, it will be difficult to define ET clinically enough to use as a standard."...

It is sensibly more than "..difficult to define ET clinically enough to use as a standard..", it is impossible.

..."Claims of superiority of one style or another must be answered by the performers that use them, and my experience is that UT's create a more musical experience for the majority of my customers."...

What I can think today is that your UT will not be much different from your ET (in terms of variations from theoretical values), but you can prove I am wrong... with some recordings.

..."This is why there is an equation of temperament=money involved for a number of us tuners. As long as I am the only one tuning UTs here, I have a clientele that is loyal to me, a good size clientele of professional users. Many epiphanies among customers along the way, and that has always been worth something to me."...

Oh... Customers... Temperament... Money..., Hmmm, I use other numbers :-)

..."Some synonyms: standard, generic, norm,guideline, benchmark, yardstick, etc. ET can be, and is, all of these. However, standard and superior are not the same thing. One is a description, the other a value judgement."...

Now, beyond words and synonyms, I am waiting for a recording that can prove how you manage emotions (see above or the quote below).

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I actually agree with you here, UnrightTooner, and that's exactly what I was reinforcing in my above post.

But there's a difference between a theoretical standard, and a manufacturing standard, or a standard in practice. This is also what I was writing about in my above post.

As a result of the manufacturing variations in pianos, we cannot have a standard in practice for tuning - only a theoretical one. In practice, variations must be made to account for the variations in instruments.

These variations are much larger than what you alluded to here:

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid...


They are measurable variations that can be picked up on the simplest spectrum analyzer, and they have a measureable and audible impact in the practice of tuning.

So, I don't see any reason for such a heated argument on this. We already have a theoretical standard, and the variations on that, sensitive to the make of the instrument, are what create a great tuning.

As an aside, can someone explain to me what Bill Bremmer keeps talking about with his Reverse Well?


Words and... more words.

Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard. And you will be able to tune any other "variation", depending on your own idea of what is going to sound better.

If not, in order to talk about "standard" you need to refine your skills and learn how to draw beat-curves, all across the keyboard.

The first ET is impossible to tune, and (to me) it seems too easy - today - to take that model as a standard, so that... all kind of variations can be justified.

Yes, do take this as a challenge and let's see how many recordings we get! :-)
.

Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 06:40 PM


Let's see, who else could I invite...

Bill Bremmer, how would you like to prove that you are able to tune ET all across the keyboard? Sometime ago you said that Chas is the ET you would tune, were you ever asked to tune ET. And you also met Bernhard Stopper, so it should not be difficult for you to tune pure 12ths and progressive RBI's on two very different pianos? (??)

Let's see... Kent Swafford, you ought to be used to pure 12ths, you said you were happy with OnlyPure...

Hmmm..., rxd, you too say you tune ET, you may know what you are talking about.

And (of course) Bernhard Stopper, you advocate "pure 12ths", surely it will be easy for you to provide two aural ET pure-12ths tunings on two very different pianos.

Who else..., Hmmm... Right now I do not recall other colleagues, but... anyone is invited.

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:13 PM


Oh, yes, and Ron Koval, I am sure you have all the means to partecipate.

Let's see, perhaps... before tuning pianos we can tune words?
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:30 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Let's see, who else could I invite...

Who else..., Hmmm... Right now I do not recall other colleagues, but... anyone is invited.

How about inviting yourself? My offer to analyze your tuning with my software still stands.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 07:42 PM


Kees,

Your software was not precise enough (remember?) to let you (and Bill (?)) understand what ET is about.

Please, feel free to stay out of this, you are not a pro (aural) tuner. And sure, I am ready to arrange and post my recordings for aural evaluations, otherwise... what would I be talking about? :-)

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Words and... more words.

Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard. And you will be able to tune any other "variation" as well, depending on your own idea of what is going to sound better, more musical or more emotional.

If not, in order to talk about "standard" you need to refine your skills and learn how to draw beat-curves, all across the keyboard.

The first ET is impossible to tune, and (to me) it seems too easy - today - to take that model as a standard, so that... all kind of variations can be justified.

Yes, do take this as a challenge and let's see how many recordings we get! :-)

Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Kees,

Your software was not precise enough (remember?) to let you (and Bill (?)) understand what ET is about.

That conclusion is entirely yours.
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Please, feel free to stay out of this, you are not a pro (aural) tuner. And sure, I am ready to arrange and post my recordings for aural evaluations, otherwise... what would I be talking about? :-)

I feel free to do what I want, thank you very much.

Kees
Posted by: Chris Storch

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 09:46 PM

Mark and OperaTenor,

I just went through my notebook:

School started on Sept 5.
We were tuning unisons and octaves until Sept 26 when we were introduced to Martin Agricola Just Pythagorean Tuning on Sept 26.
September 28 had Pietro Aron Meantone Temperament
October 3 had the Andreas Werkmeister Well Temperament (Werkmeister III)
and then on October 4 they introduced us to Equal Temperament.

So there you have it. A full nine days out of a traditional US school year was devoted to the subject (if you include the weekend).
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 09:49 PM

Alfredo, this is not a thread about CHAS.

You are out of line to talk to Kees that way. He is very intelligent (though not a professional tuner) and willing to offer you an open mind if you take him up on it. Unfortunately, you have been the one resistant to scrutiny.

Originally Posted By: Alfredo
Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard.


This must be where your understanding falls off, Alfredo.

If you look closely at these intervals on any piano, they are never perfectly progressive. One set of intervals may be progressive at the expense of another, but almost never can they all be perfectly progressive at the same time. Compromises have to be made for ideal tuning in individual instruments.

Poorer pianos show this effect more clearly, but it occurs in all pianos.

So the answer to your question is 'no'.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 10:10 PM

In the end, the Technician who is earning a six digit income, is doing SOMETHING right
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 11:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Mark and OperaTenor,

I just went through my notebook:

School started on Sept 5.
We were tuning unisons and octaves until Sept 26 when we were introduced to Martin Agricola Just Pythagorean Tuning on Sept 26.
September 28 had Pietro Aron Meantone Temperament
October 3 had the Andreas Werkmeister Well Temperament (Werkmeister III)
and then on October 4 they introduced us to Equal Temperament.

So there you have it. A full nine days out of a traditional US school year was devoted to the subject (if you include the weekend).


Do you mean nine days spent on UT's before you got to ET?
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 11:16 PM

The only reason to have standards is to have interoperability. If my gizmo is broken and needs a new screw I can go to any hardware store and get such a screw, as screw sizes are standardized.

Similarly if I'd get my piano tuned by Mr X today I can get it touched up by Mrs Y next week if both tune the same standard tuning to the best of their ability. Roughly speaking the thing to standardize would be the temperament and the stretch. It seems there is no consensus on the stretch so we'll have to accept that can't be standardized except in special circumstances described in great detail by rxd. The temperament however has a de facto standard already, namely EBVT3, sorry I meant ET, that I would expect a tuner to tune unless instructed otherwise.

This of course does not preclude the tuning of other temperaments on request by tuners capable of doing so. If any such other temperament would become popular it could become another standard. (Screws are standardized, but this does not mean all screws are the same.)

That being said, if you listen to piano pieces posted on youtube by our customers, it is surprising that there is a market at all for piano tuners as a lot of people are quite happy to post their performance on pianos so out of tune that I would consider them to be unplayable. For example.

Kees
Posted by: RonTuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 11:19 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor


An excellent point it there about how UT's are measured in deviations from ET. That alone is an unconscious concession of ET being the standard.



I think if we started with that sort of definition, that ET was a base starting point, or a point of reference, there wouldn't have been as much length and stress in this thread...

instead we started here:
Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

Which seemed much more as regulating what MUST be tuned to be accepted.

(I have really enjoyed the irony of you writing to legislate or codify a belief system!)

Ron Koval
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/22/13 11:35 PM

Originally Posted By: RonTuner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor


An excellent point it there about how UT's are measured in deviations from ET. That alone is an unconscious concession of ET being the standard.



I think if we started with that sort of definition, that ET was a base starting point, or a point of reference, there wouldn't have been as much length and stress in this thread...

instead we started here:
Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

Which seemed much more as regulating what MUST be tuned to be accepted.

(I have really enjoyed the irony of you writing to legislate or codify a belief system!)

Ron Koval


I didn't mean it to come across that ET is what MUST be tuned. I think I said as much in subsequent posts.

What Kees said in the post above yours is salient to my point. Here's one more along those lines. Tuner X likes tuning Werckmeister III and does it for all of his customers who've gotten used to the sound of it and like it (after all, 99% of customers take whatever temperament we tune for them as gospel). Tuner X is hospitalized, and tuner Y comes in to cover for him. Problem is, tuner Y only knows Young 1799, which by comparison sounds wonky to tuner X's regular customers.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 04:20 AM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Alfredo, this is not a thread about CHAS.

You are out of line to talk to Kees that way. He is very intelligent (though not a professional tuner) and willing to offer you an open mind if you take him up on it. Unfortunately, you have been the one resistant to scrutiny.

Originally Posted By: Alfredo
Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard.


This must be where your understanding falls off, Alfredo.

If you look closely at these intervals on any piano, they are never perfectly progressive. One set of intervals may be progressive at the expense of another, but almost never can they all be perfectly progressive at the same time. Compromises have to be made for ideal tuning in individual instruments.

Poorer pianos show this effect more clearly, but it occurs in all pianos.

So the answer to your question is 'no'.


Tunewerk,

I do not think you understood what I was talking about, perhaps due to my English, but... try to make an effort, re-read what I wrote (quoted below) and you will see that my post addresses tunings, "standard" and "variations".

It sounds strange to me when you expand on someone's intelligence, for me it is very bad taste, and you do not need to anticipate my behaviour, just keep on reading and you will understand what I am "resistant" to.

You wrote: ..."If you look closely at these intervals on any piano, they are never perfectly progressive. One set of intervals may be progressive at the expense of another, but almost never can they all be perfectly progressive at the same time. Compromises have to be made for ideal tuning in individual instruments."...

I do not think this thread is about "compromises". Nevertheless, I appreciate your answer, as it can partly explain your outlook.

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I actually agree with you here, UnrightTooner, and that's exactly what I was reinforcing in my above post.

But there's a difference between a theoretical standard, and a manufacturing standard, or a standard in practice. This is also what I was writing about in my above post.

As a result of the manufacturing variations in pianos, we cannot have a standard in practice for tuning - only a theoretical one. In practice, variations must be made to account for the variations in instruments.

These variations are much larger than what you alluded to here:

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
"To the precision of scientific instruments"... nothing is flat or round or level or solid...


They are measurable variations that can be picked up on the simplest spectrum analyzer, and they have a measureable and audible impact in the practice of tuning.

So, I don't see any reason for such a heated argument on this. We already have a theoretical standard, and the variations on that, sensitive to the make of the instrument, are what create a great tuning.

As an aside, can someone explain to me what Bill Bremmer keeps talking about with his Reverse Well?


Words and... more words.

Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

If yes, you can say that you are able to refer to a theoretical standard. And you will be able to tune any other "variation" as well, depending on your own idea of what is going to sound better, more musical or more emotional.

If not, in order to talk about "standard" you need to refine your skills and learn how to draw beat-curves, all across the keyboard.

The first ET is impossible to tune, and (to me) it seems too easy - today - to take that model as a standard, so that... all kind of variations can be justified.

Yes, do take this as a challenge and let's see how many recordings we get! :-)

Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 07:19 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

Are you able to tune pure 12ths and progressive 3rds, 6ths, 10ths and 17ths on two very different pianos?

.....


That is what I strive for. But I will address this more in my next post. smile
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 07:36 AM

All, especially Tunewerk:

I want to separate the sheep from the goats. I have doubts that many of those posting on this subject know what they are talking about. Here are some questions.

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernable chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

What is the tolerance of an experienced tuner's ability to place a note at the pitch he desires in cents?

What percentage of modern piano scales are capable of being tuned with progressively beating major 3rds and major 6ths across the break while keeping the same octave/12th stretch scheme above, below and across the break?

I do not expect agreement, but I think the answers will show who has actually studied the practical implementation of ET on actual pianos.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 03:03 PM

Hi Jeff,

You wrote:

..."Here are some questions.

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernable chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?"...

The "tolerance" would not be "required", perhaps "allowed"? In my experience, none;

..."What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?"...

I do not know about ETD's; in any case, any tolerance will mess up the (final) beat-rate progression;

..."What is the tolerance of an experienced tuner's ability to place a note at the pitch he desires in cents?"...

I cannot answer for others, but myself: perhaps zero.zero;

..."What percentage of modern piano scales are capable of being tuned with progressively beating major 3rds and major 6ths across the break while keeping the same octave/12th stretch scheme above, below and across the break?"...

The "scheme" must consider also 4ths, 5ths, 10ths, 15ths and 17ths, and you can think of a very, very, very high percentage. In other words, scaling is not the problem at all. Sometime you get a false string across the break, but that's a different question.

Regards, a.c.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernable chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

I get about 0.2 cent, in the sense that if 4 notes are off by this much in just the wrong direction, a previously perfectly progressive chromatic M3 pair becomes equal beating. I haven't checked M6, but assume it's about the same.
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

According to the manuals, Verituner = 0.01 cent, SAT-IV 0.005 cent, Cybertuner 0.01 cent. Didn't find it in the tunelab manual.

Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernable chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

I get about 0.2 cent, in the sense that if 4 notes are off by this much in just the wrong direction, a previously perfectly progressive chromatic M3 pair becomes equal beating. I haven't checked M6, but assume it's about the same.
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

According to the manuals, Verituner = 0.01 cent, SAT-IV 0.005 cent, Cybertuner 0.01 cent. Didn't find it in the tunelab manual.

Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not.

Kees


Kees, you wrote: ..."I get about 0.2 cent, in the sense that if 4 notes are off by this much in just the wrong direction, a previously perfectly progressive chromatic M3 pair becomes equal beating. I haven't checked M6, but assume it's about the same."...

Ok, and then... what happens one octave above (or below) (edit: with the same tolerance)? My guess, some M3 will reverse;

..."According to the manuals, Verituner = 0.01 cent, SAT-IV 0.005 cent, Cybertuner 0.01 cent. Didn't find it in the tunelab manual."...

On top of that, there is still hammer/pin/string_stable_pitch individual skill, not in the manual;

..."Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not."

Very very accurate, I would say, as it is only a question of rhythm, when you are strict and honest.
.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 06:46 PM

U
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


..."Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not."

Very very accurate, I would say, as it is only a question of rhythm, when you are strict and honest.
.


Exactly, Alfredo.
In my own first experiments, all those years ago, I worked out the metronome speeds for four beats per click in RBI's. 8 beats per second being semi quavers (sixteenth notes) at mm=120. Working out the same rhythm for 7.3 beats per second, etc. at a slightly slower mm setting and so forth. While taking exact numbers like this as gospel is not entirely correct, this method gave me a better start, I think.

Somebody years ago on this forum said that a sense of rhythm is more important than a sense of pitch in tempered tuning.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: rxd
U
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


..."Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not."

Very very accurate, I would say, as it is only a question of rhythm, when you are strict and honest.
.


Exactly, Alfredo.
In my own first experiments, all those years ago, I worked out the metronome speeds for four beats per click in RBI's. 8 beats per second being semi quavers (sixteenth notes) at mm=120. Working out the same rhythm for 7.3 beats per second, etc. at a slightly slower mm setting and so forth. While taking exact numbers like this as gospel is not entirely correct, this method gave me a better start, I think.

Somebody years ago on this forum said that a sense of rhythm is more important than a sense of pitch in tempered tuning.


I was thinking much the same in response to UT's questions; that perhaps it's more appropriate to think in terms of beat rates than cents.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 07:13 PM

As I said a very long time ago, beats are the divergence from just intonation, while cents are the divergence from equal temperament. Beats are natural and can be heard, while cents have to be computed.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 09:00 PM

UnrightTooner:

First, I think all technicians here, taking the time out of their day to post, have practical experience with implementing ET on the piano. The difference may be in the quantitative understanding of what they are doing.

Second, aural tuners never think in cents, because they change in relation to frequency across the spectrum (A2 - 16c/Hz, A4 - 4c/Hz, A6 - 1c/Hz). Cents resolution decreases as frequency increases.

#1 - Just concerning M3rds/M6ths in the temperament region (again this changes as frequency increases), about +/-0.75c at the maximum. If any one note varies more, it will exceed the window of 'progressive'.

#2 - As Kees said, about 0.01c for machines internally. This does not mean a tuner can transfer that precision to a pin, or that the +/-0.01 machine point is the right point.

#3 - An experienced tuner with a good piano should be able to make stable changes on the order of 0.1c. Finer variations necessary for uncompromising tuning are on the order of 0.01c.

#4 - This is a very small number of pianos, in the 7'+ range. Some variation and compromise is always necessary across the break, even in the finest pianos, due to the reduced inharmonicity of all wound bass strings.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 10:06 PM

As a test I tuned F3-A4 using tunelab. A recording of the M3, M6 and m3's is here.

Do they sound progressive to the expert tuners?

Kees
Posted by: Mark Cerisano, RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/23/13 10:56 PM

Hi Kees,

My tuning approach is to find intervals that don't fit and fix them. The quality of my tunings are dependent on how good my ear is in telling me if something doesn't fit, not telling if it is perfect. I teach my students that instead of looking for perfection, simply try to improve on what you hear could be improved. As your hearing gets better, you are able to hear more and more precisely. As you fix more and more subtle inaccuracies, your tunings begin to "appear" more perfect. But as my swimming coach says "There's always someone faster than you.", i.e. there's always someone who hears more that could be improved.

So, for temperament, I would look for any RBI that slow down instead of speeding up, (because trying to decide if a RBI increases more than it should is just too darn difficult for my weak ear) and then confirm with other tests to find which note could be improved, and do just that, make it better, not trying to be perfect, that illusion comes later as you are refining more and more subtle inaccuracies.

FA -
F#A# -
GB -
AbC -
AC# - slows down
BbD -
BD# -
CE - slows down
C#E# -
DF# - slows down
EbG -
EG# -
FA -

FD -
F#D# -
GE - slows down
AbF -
AF# - slows down
BbG -
BG# - slows down
CA -

FAb -
F#A -
GBb -
AbCb -
AC - slows down
BbDb -
BD - slows down
CEb -
C#E - slows down
DF -
EbGb - slows down
EG -
FAb - slows down
F#A -

Now, I know you already know what the speeds are by using your software, so you may be able to make me look like a fool here, but, understand that this is a snap shot in time, a "guess" if you will. If I was at the piano, I would be using multiple tests to confirm my "guesses" and also confirm if my corrections didn't knock something else out. If half of these are right, I would be impressed.

The m3's were tricky. They actually sounded right on, but the "slows down" were like figments of my imagination. I don't use m3's much, especially up there.

(Addendum - Tunelab?! I didn't realize that until just now. Very interesting. How sure are you that the pitches match Tunelab? How did you create the stretch? Six notes within F3 - A4 would've been best.)
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 12:51 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Cerisano, RPT
Hi Kees,
(Addendum - Tunelab?! I didn't realize that until just now. Very interesting. How sure are you that the pitches match Tunelab? How did you create the stretch? Six notes within F3 - A4 would've been best.)

Thanks Mark, it is nice to put your money where your mouth is as the saying apparently is in English. I do hope you will not be the only one to do so. I haven't analyzed the beatrates yet, but will do so when I find time.

Regarding tunelab: I just used the default sampling for ih provided with tunelab. This is intended as a test of the ETD, so I didn't want to do anything unusual.

Kees
Posted by: Chris Storch

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 06:30 AM

Doel,

I'm not an expert tuner yet, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

No, those series of chromatic intervals you played do not sound progressive to me.

What kind of piano is this? It sounds like a short upright. Where is the break between wound and unwound strings? And where is the break between bass and tenor section?

I'd be interested to hear the inside out M3 / M6 tests. Can you post a recording of that?

Many thanks for the recording and the invitation to comment. You're brave!
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 08:26 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
All, especially Tunewerk:

I want to separate the sheep from the goats. I have doubts that many of those posting on this subject know what they are talking about. Here are some questions.

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

What is the tolerance of an experienced tuner's ability to place a note at the pitch he desires in cents?

What percentage of modern piano scales are capable of being tuned with progressively beating major 3rds and major 6ths across the break while keeping the same octave/12th stretch scheme above, below and across the break?

I do not expect agreement, but I think the answers will show who has actually studied the practical implementation of ET on actual pianos.


We do not have to agree, this is more about how we think.

1. Ok, instead of asking "how many cents", we could say "how many beats" but only as a ratio of the beats of the intervals above and below the interval in question. (1 bps means 4 times as much in the F2-A2 M3 than the F4-A4 M3.) The ratio of any two intervals a semi-tone apart is about 15:16. The problem is that the further that an interval is tuned from just intonation, the further you may change the pitch of a note and still have the interval be progressive. M3s are a little more just than M6s, but P5s are way more just. In the above definition of ET, which no one has disputed, we can consider just the M3's for tolerance, because they are closer to just than the M6s. As has been correctly pointed out, the permissible error of one note in a pair of chromatic intervals must be divided by 4 for the allowable tolerance of all four notes. So when adjusting the beating of one interval by changing one note, it cannot be adjusted more than 1:16 of the beatrate before the intervals are no longer progressive. And when we consider all 4 notes, none can be adjusted more than 1/48th of the beatrate. It ain't much. When you work this out as cents, I get the same answer as Kees, of course: +/- 0.2 cents.

2. Repeatable tolerance is different than advertised accuracy. I have never used an ETD, but from reading many posts about their use, when measuring a note over and over, the repeatable accuracy is +/- 0.3 cents.

3. Again from reading many posts, it seems that the ability of a typical experienced tuner on a typical piano to set a note where they want it to be is +/- 0.3 cents. I have to kind of wonder about this, as it is the same repeatable accuracy for ETDs. So how would anyone know? But when I take a sober look at my own abilities and considering the extremely small change in beat rates that this would equate to, I think I believe it.

4. Once in a while I will come across a piano that has a break that does not cause some sort of "wrinkle" in the tuning. They have all been modern studio uprights or modern baby grands. I am not saying that a seamless break is best (I have my doubts), just that they are very rare in my experience.

So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink

Kees brought up a very good point: "Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not." I would think at least the difference between 15:16 and 16:16 or we wouldn't talk about using chromatic beatrates as checks.

Myself, I think I can distinguish about 4 times finer. This all fits in with what I consider my ability is to put a note where I want it. I often can hear that some M6/M3 tests have the M6s a little faster and some the M3 a little faster but cannot do much about it. But since the ETD vs Aural opinions are starting to rear up their ugly heads, let me also bring up the RBI vs SBI argument discussion. The chromatic beatrate ratio change for a given change in pitch with SBIs is 7 times greater (more precise) than with RBIs.

This all does mean something to me. A practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." is a good one. It is just barely achievable, but still objective without resorting to scientific instruments. So ET, being definable in the real world on real pianos, CAN be a standard. But if someone wants to use it more as a reference for something else that they prefer, well, it doesn’t cause me physical pain.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 08:47 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
As a test I tuned F3-A4 using tunelab. A recording of the M3, M6 and m3's is here.

Do they sound progressive to the expert tuners?

Kees


Not so much, some intervals are Ok other do not progress enough, or too much.

Could the software show that the beat rates are not even/straight and they change in time?, there is some sort of "bloom" due to the beat rate speed varying very slightly.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 09:24 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

3. Again from reading many posts, it seems that the ability of a typical experienced tuner on a typical piano to set a note where they want it to be is +/- 0.3 cents. I have to kind of wonder about this, as it is the same repeatable accuracy for ETDs. So how would anyone know? But when I take a sober look at my own abilities and considering the extremely small change in beat rates that this would equate to, I think I believe it.


Folks, I am not here to argue.

I am just going to reply to Jeff.

Jeff, I have not done extensive checking but have checked my aural temperament and octave tuning with tunelab, not so recently.

From what I recall, depending on the pianos and myself (i suppose), in my temperament, I could get absolutely spot on to a cent or more off. With my octave tuning, I seemed to be about a 1 cent off of the 4:1 double octave stretch in general.

FWIW

Don't ask me anything to in depth, you'll confuse me!
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 09:31 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

4. Once in a while I will come across a piano that has a break that does not cause some sort of "wrinkle" in the tuning. They have all been modern studio uprights or modern baby grands. I am not saying that a seamless break is best (I have my doubts), just that they are very rare in my experience.

So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink



The break does cause a minor problem, if one can say that.

I always tune 4ths, 5ths across the break, I listen to the octave and 3rds and move on.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

3. Again from reading many posts, it seems that the ability of a typical experienced tuner on a typical piano to set a note where they want it to be is +/- 0.3 cents. I have to kind of wonder about this, as it is the same repeatable accuracy for ETDs. So how would anyone know? But when I take a sober look at my own abilities and considering the extremely small change in beat rates that this would equate to, I think I believe it.


Folks, I am not here to argue.

I am just going to reply to Jeff.

Jeff, I have not done extensive checking but have checked my aural temperament and octave tuning with tunelab, not so recently.

From what I recall, depending on the pianos and myself (i suppose), in my temperament, I could get absolutely spot on to a cent or more off. With my octave tuning, I seemed to be about a 1 cent off of the 4:1 double octave stretch in general.

FWIW

Don't ask me anything to in depth, you'll confuse me!


No in depth questions, just an intriguingly simple one. When you compared your temperment to tunelab, were the M3s and M6s progressive?
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 10:54 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
As a test I tuned F3-A4 using tunelab. A recording of the M3, M6 and m3's is here.

Do they sound progressive to the expert tuners?

Kees


Nice test - I assume you will post the analysis later?

The first three thirds sound the same speed to me, G3-B3 sounds perhaps a fraction slower than the preceeding two.
The next progress fine.
C-E and C#-F are slower than the preceeding thirds. D-F# resumes the progression. Difficult to hear above that, but E4-G#4 sounds fast compared to F4A4

F3-D4 is too slow, F#3-F#4 too fast. The next progress until A#3-F#4 which is slower, and the C4-A4 is too slow as well.

The m3rds I find a bit difficult to hear in this context.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 11:25 AM

I would listen, but I can't seem to get at the file. frown
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 01:43 PM

Jeff, I do not recall, unfortunately!?
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 01:46 PM

I too, am not able to get at the file.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 01:55 PM

Jeff, I will try to be more diligent in checking this out, so I can give a report back, when I can.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 02:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Jeff, I will try to be more diligent in checking this out, so I can give a report back, when I can.


No hurry.

See, I remember a frequent poster mentioning one time how difficult it was, using a well known ETD, to use it to prove it would tune like an aural tuner, resulting in progressive M3s across the break of a Baldwin Studio. The results were posted on the ETDs website. (Maybe they still are...) I was shocked! I would never do such a thing with a Baldwin Studio. The octaves and fifths must have been horrid.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 03:15 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I would listen, but I can't seem to get at the file. frown


I put it in an html container, please try this:
http://persianney.com/misc/container.html

Right click to download I think.

Look forward to your opinion.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 03:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Doel,

I'm not an expert tuner yet, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

No, those series of chromatic intervals you played do not sound progressive to me.

What kind of piano is this? It sounds like a short upright. Where is the break between wound and unwound strings? And where is the break between bass and tenor section?

I'd be interested to hear the inside out M3 / M6 tests. Can you post a recording of that?

Many thanks for the recording and the invitation to comment. You're brave!

Appreciate the comments. Can you be more specific? Which M3's are not progressive?

It's a 1903 Heintzmann upright console. Break at D#3D.

Unfortunately I tuned it back to another temperament so can't do the M3M6 test. Maybe I'll repeat the experiment, would be interesting to see if there is consistency in the tunelab tunings.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
As a test I tuned F3-A4 using tunelab. A recording of the M3, M6 and m3's is here.

Do they sound progressive to the expert tuners?

Kees


Not so much, some intervals are Ok other do not progress enough, or too much.

If you have time I'd appreciate your opinion on which particular intervals are not progressive, in particular the M3's.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 05:51 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
All, especially Tunewerk:

I want to separate the sheep from the goats. I have doubts that many of those posting on this subject know what they are talking about. Here are some questions.

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

What is the tolerance of an experienced tuner's ability to place a note at the pitch he desires in cents?

What percentage of modern piano scales are capable of being tuned with progressively beating major 3rds and major 6ths across the break while keeping the same octave/12th stretch scheme above, below and across the break?

I do not expect agreement, but I think the answers will show who has actually studied the practical implementation of ET on actual pianos.


We do not have to agree, this is more about how we think.

1. Ok, instead of asking "how many cents", we could say "how many beats" but only as a ratio of the beats of the intervals above and below the interval in question. (1 bps means 4 times as much in the F2-A2 M3 than the F4-A4 M3.) The ratio of any two intervals a semi-tone apart is about 15:16. The problem is that the further that an interval is tuned from just intonation, the further you may change the pitch of a note and still have the interval be progressive. M3s are a little more just than M6s, but P5s are way more just. In the above definition of ET, which no one has disputed, we can consider just the M3's for tolerance, because they are closer to just than the M6s. As has been correctly pointed out, the permissible error of one note in a pair of chromatic intervals must be divided by 4 for the allowable tolerance of all four notes. So when adjusting the beating of one interval by changing one note, it cannot be adjusted more than 1:16 of the beatrate before the intervals are no longer progressive. And when we consider all 4 notes, none can be adjusted more than 1/48th of the beatrate. It ain't much. When you work this out as cents, I get the same answer as Kees, of course: +/- 0.2 cents.

2. Repeatable tolerance is different than advertised accuracy. I have never used an ETD, but from reading many posts about their use, when measuring a note over and over, the repeatable accuracy is +/- 0.3 cents.

3. Again from reading many posts, it seems that the ability of a typical experienced tuner on a typical piano to set a note where they want it to be is +/- 0.3 cents. I have to kind of wonder about this, as it is the same repeatable accuracy for ETDs. So how would anyone know? But when I take a sober look at my own abilities and considering the extremely small change in beat rates that this would equate to, I think I believe it.

4. Once in a while I will come across a piano that has a break that does not cause some sort of "wrinkle" in the tuning. They have all been modern studio uprights or modern baby grands. I am not saying that a seamless break is best (I have my doubts), just that they are very rare in my experience.

So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink

Kees brought up a very good point: "Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not." I would think at least the difference between 15:16 and 16:16 or we wouldn't talk about using chromatic beatrates as checks.

Myself, I think I can distinguish about 4 times finer. This all fits in with what I consider my ability is to put a note where I want it. I often can hear that some M6/M3 tests have the M6s a little faster and some the M3 a little faster but cannot do much about it. But since the ETD vs Aural opinions are starting to rear up their ugly heads, let me also bring up the RBI vs SBI argument discussion. The chromatic beatrate ratio change for a given change in pitch with SBIs is 7 times greater (more precise) than with RBIs.

This all does mean something to me. A practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." is a good one. It is just barely achievable, but still objective without resorting to scientific instruments. So ET, being definable in the real world on real pianos, CAN be a standard. But if someone wants to use it more as a reference for something else that they prefer, well, it doesn’t cause me physical pain.


1. I was lucky... When I decided to (try to) satisfy my need for intonation, I knew nothing about those related numbers.

2. Should not we compare different ETDs? And, were is Robert Scott? Does anyone know?

3. Ability, "...it seems that..", any better, Jeff, when you are not sober? :-)

4. Yes, well said, ..."in my experience".

..."..So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink

In a way, how "Indulgent" will depend on you and (perhaps) on the piano, "Mystery" - today - only depends on you. :-)

..."This all does mean something to me. A practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." is a good one. It is just barely achievable, but still objective without resorting to scientific instruments. So ET, being definable in the real world on real pianos, CAN be a standard. But if someone wants to use it more as a reference for something else that they prefer, well, it doesn’t cause me physical pain."...

I do not check major 6ths across the break, and I think we should consider (instead) 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths, to define ET and make sure we are addressing (and tempering) a wider compass.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/24/13 06:28 PM

Well that's perfect, Alfredo. You don't listen to M6ths across the break? Then you can't claim to tune perfect ET. You are ignoring whole sets of data.

That puts a lot of questions to rest. It also makes sense why you don't see any error in your tunings or understand my claims.

Tuning wider intervals doesn't guarantee better results. That's objectively incorrect.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 01:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Well that's perfect, Alfredo. You don't listen to M6ths across the break? Then you can't claim to tune perfect ET. You are ignoring whole sets of data.

That puts a lot of questions to rest. It also makes sense why you don't see any error in your tunings or understand my claims.

Tuning wider intervals doesn't guarantee better results. That's objectively incorrect.


I will remind you what I claim, Tunewerk, in a different thread (later today).

There I wrote "...instead...", and did not exclude 3rds, 4ths and 5ths.

To All, have a good day, a.c.
.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
All, especially Tunewerk:

I want to separate the sheep from the goats. I have doubts that many of those posting on this subject know what they are talking about. Here are some questions.

If we use a practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." what tolerance in cents is required for each note?

What is the repeatable tolerance of typical ETDs in cents?

What is the tolerance of an experienced tuner's ability to place a note at the pitch he desires in cents?

What percentage of modern piano scales are capable of being tuned with progressively beating major 3rds and major 6ths across the break while keeping the same octave/12th stretch scheme above, below and across the break?

I do not expect agreement, but I think the answers will show who has actually studied the practical implementation of ET on actual pianos.


We do not have to agree, this is more about how we think.

1. Ok, instead of asking "how many cents", we could say "how many beats" but only as a ratio of the beats of the intervals above and below the interval in question. (1 bps means 4 times as much in the F2-A2 M3 than the F4-A4 M3.) The ratio of any two intervals a semi-tone apart is about 15:16. The problem is that the further that an interval is tuned from just intonation, the further you may change the pitch of a note and still have the interval be progressive. M3s are a little more just than M6s, but P5s are way more just. In the above definition of ET, which no one has disputed, we can consider just the M3's for tolerance, because they are closer to just than the M6s. As has been correctly pointed out, the permissible error of one note in a pair of chromatic intervals must be divided by 4 for the allowable tolerance of all four notes. So when adjusting the beating of one interval by changing one note, it cannot be adjusted more than 1:16 of the beatrate before the intervals are no longer progressive. And when we consider all 4 notes, none can be adjusted more than 1/48th of the beatrate. It ain't much. When you work this out as cents, I get the same answer as Kees, of course: +/- 0.2 cents.

2. Repeatable tolerance is different than advertised accuracy. I have never used an ETD, but from reading many posts about their use, when measuring a note over and over, the repeatable accuracy is +/- 0.3 cents.

3. Again from reading many posts, it seems that the ability of a typical experienced tuner on a typical piano to set a note where they want it to be is +/- 0.3 cents. I have to kind of wonder about this, as it is the same repeatable accuracy for ETDs. So how would anyone know? But when I take a sober look at my own abilities and considering the extremely small change in beat rates that this would equate to, I think I believe it.

4. Once in a while I will come across a piano that has a break that does not cause some sort of "wrinkle" in the tuning. They have all been modern studio uprights or modern baby grands. I am not saying that a seamless break is best (I have my doubts), just that they are very rare in my experience.

So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink

Kees brought up a very good point: "Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not." I would think at least the difference between 15:16 and 16:16 or we wouldn't talk about using chromatic beatrates as checks.

Myself, I think I can distinguish about 4 times finer. This all fits in with what I consider my ability is to put a note where I want it. I often can hear that some M6/M3 tests have the M6s a little faster and some the M3 a little faster but cannot do much about it. But since the ETD vs Aural opinions are starting to rear up their ugly heads, let me also bring up the RBI vs SBI argument discussion. The chromatic beatrate ratio change for a given change in pitch with SBIs is 7 times greater (more precise) than with RBIs.

This all does mean something to me. A practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." is a good one. It is just barely achievable, but still objective without resorting to scientific instruments. So ET, being definable in the real world on real pianos, CAN be a standard. But if someone wants to use it more as a reference for something else that they prefer, well, it doesn’t cause me physical pain.


1. I was lucky... When I decided to (try to) satisfy my need for intonation, I knew nothing about those related numbers.

2. Should not we compare different ETDs? And, were is Robert Scott? Does anyone know?

3. Ability, "...it seems that..", any better, Jeff, when you are not sober? :-)

4. Yes, well said, ..."in my experience".

..."..So some believe that they can always achieve progressive M3s and M6s on any piano across any break without much compromising. Well, I will consider this to be an "Indulgent Mystery". wink

In a way, how "Indulgent" will depend on you and (perhaps) on the piano, "Mystery" - today - only depends on you. :-)

..."This all does mean something to me. A practical definition of ET on an actual piano as "All discernible chromatic major 3rds and major 6ths have progressive beatrates." is a good one. It is just barely achievable, but still objective without resorting to scientific instruments. So ET, being definable in the real world on real pianos, CAN be a standard. But if someone wants to use it more as a reference for something else that they prefer, well, it doesn’t cause me physical pain."...

I do not check major 6ths across the break, and I think we should consider (instead) 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths, to define ET and make sure we are addressing (and tempering) a wider compass.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 05:32 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I would listen, but I can't seem to get at the file. frown


I put it in an html container, please try this:
http://persianney.com/misc/container.html

Right click to download I think.

Look forward to your opinion.

Kees


This link works for me, Kees, thanks.

I thought this would be easy, but my normal tuning mode is fighting what I am trying to do. For instance, the second M3 is slower than the first, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. The first M3 may be too fast. I will work on it some more. I may have to go through it 13 times for the just the M3s. Judging the whole string one interval after another isn't working. I find myself trying to get a sense of where they all should be rather than which ones are slower than the one below, even if they are both too fast...
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 06:50 AM

We are used to recognize some kind of activity in the FBI, but what strikes me is that they are not giving a proof that the temperament is nicely tuned.

Suffice to use a too short or too large octave and the 5 ths & 4ths cannot be tuned.

When using a 2 octaves "temperament" one can eventually realize that the 5th can lack of flavor even while the 3ds and 10ths are progressive.

That "goal" of progressiveness of FBI can well make us just forget the origin of harmony.

For that reason I have heard many very progressive temperaments that shared tasteless 5ths, very neutralmore on the too large side than expected, that stayed unsuspected.

That gave me the impression that the tuning is a "layer of justness" added on the acoustical properties of the instrument.

Sound too neutral, to me, that way of tuning is or was widely used because enlarging the central octaves gives facility for the tuning in higher and lower regions. it allows to keep the 17 th with a less fast beating, for instance.

When you tune a 2 octaves temperament you see how you begin to compromise with your slow beating intervals, and that the tonal impression dissipates.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 06:53 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
U
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


..."Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not."

Very very accurate, I would say, as it is only a question of rhythm, when you are strict and honest.
.


Exactly, Alfredo.
In my own first experiments, all those years ago, I worked out the metronome speeds for four beats per click in RBI's. 8 beats per second being semi quavers (sixteenth notes) at mm=120. Working out the same rhythm for 7.3 beats per second, etc. at a slightly slower mm setting and so forth. While taking exact numbers like this as gospel is not entirely correct, this method gave me a better start, I think.

Somebody years ago on this forum said that a sense of rhythm is more important than a sense of pitch in tempered tuning.


ALl beat rates can be precisely computed for the metronome, assuming you have them in quarter notes, or semi quarters for instance,as you said.
I had a small list with the metronome setups, when I was working my sense of beat rates that way.

I suppose you mean 7.3 for the F# G# third. Ibet you do not count anymore wink
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 07:33 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I would listen, but I can't seem to get at the file. frown


I put it in an html container, please try this:
http://persianney.com/misc/container.html

Right click to download I think.

Look forward to your opinion.

Kees


This link works for me, Kees, thanks.

I thought this would be easy, but my normal tuning mode is fighting what I am trying to do. For instance, the second M3 is slower than the first, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. The first M3 may be too fast. I will work on it some more. I may have to go through it 13 times for the just the M3s. Judging the whole string one interval after another isn't working. I find myself trying to get a sense of where they all should be rather than which ones are slower than the one below, even if they are both too fast...


Ugh, I am on a different computer now, and not having luck. It will have to wait a few days. It is just so strange to listen for prgression but not for where an error may lie, especially on a temperment I did not tune and observe in the creation.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 07:35 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

I do not check major 6ths across the break, and I think we should consider (instead) 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths, to define ET and make sure we are addressing (and tempering) a wider compass.


Ah, a self-indulgent mystery.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 07:46 AM

Let's be serious, breaks can be challenging and that is where we have to choose on what we prefer, what will be the most noticed.

But even when tuning based on an acoustical shape , some intervals are more important than others. The amount of regularity is yet amazing enough so we can leave one or 2 6ths non progressive at the break, on the most challenged pianos.

As long as no inversion occurs it is OK for me.

I have a recording of intervals tuned in CHAS by ALfredo, they have been posted quite some time ago it goes up to the 17th and one octave that are progressive wink if it is the goal.

In classical way of tuning the usual reflex is as when driving a car and you see a crossing, you but a light pressure on the brake pedal

(so the crossing will be passed quietly)

I like those musical comparisons wink
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/25/13 06:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: rxd
U
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


..."Another question is how accurate can one aurally compare beatrates to determine if they are progressive or not."

Very very accurate, I would say, as it is only a question of rhythm, when you are strict and honest.
.


Exactly, Alfredo.
In my own first experiments, all those years ago, I worked out the metronome speeds for four beats per click in RBI's. 8 beats per second being semi quavers (sixteenth notes) at mm=120. Working out the same rhythm for 7.3 beats per second, etc. at a slightly slower mm setting and so forth. While taking exact numbers like this as gospel is not entirely correct, this method gave me a better start, I think.

Somebody years ago on this forum said that a sense of rhythm is more important than a sense of pitch in tempered tuning.


ALl beat rates can be precisely computed for the metronome, assuming you have them in quarter notes, or semi quarters for instance,as you said.
I had a small list with the metronome setups, when I was working my sense of beat rates that way.

I suppose you mean 7.3 for the F# G# third. Ibet you do not count anymore wink


Isaac,

I am late with all my replies... it is only due to the amount of work I am doing every day.. I wasn't used anymore..., but now I am getting a view on a new reality, many different pianos which are not "my regular" customers as it was in Italy for a large percentage. Un caro saluto...

Hi rxd, you wrote: ..."Somebody years ago on this forum said that a sense of rhythm is more important than a sense of pitch in tempered tuning."...

And I agree, in this sense: if you have to be good on something (for tuning 240+ strings), better to be good on rhythm. The first days (long ago) I did try to tune two octaves with my sense of pitch, but I got lost to a point of deep frustration. Fortunately I was told about beats but never accepted to have to give up my sense of pitch. "Sense of rhythm" became the driver, "sense of pitch" the address.


Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

I do not check major 6ths across the break, and I think we should consider (instead) 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths, to define ET and make sure we are addressing (and tempering) a wider compass.


Ah, a self-indulgent mystery.


Well, Jeff, with this new technology... we will soon know better about that (Thanks Kees).

In any case, were they 3+4? Now they are 3*4. :-)

Originally Posted By: Olek
Let's be serious, breaks can be challenging and that is where we have to choose on what we prefer, what will be the most noticed.

But even when tuning based on an acoustical shape , some intervals are more important than others. The amount of regularity is yet amazing enough so we can leave one or 2 6ths non progressive at the break, on the most challenged pianos.

As long as no inversion occurs it is OK for me.

I have a recording of intervals tuned in CHAS by ALfredo, they have been posted quite some time ago it goes up to the 17th and one octave that are progressive wink if it is the goal.

In classical way of tuning the usual reflex is as when driving a car and you see a crossing, you but a light pressure on the brake pedal

(so the crossing will be passed quietly)

I like those musical comparisons wink


And I like your insight, Isaac..., with or without CS.
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/28/13 09:21 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I would listen, but I can't seem to get at the file. frown


I put it in an html container, please try this:
http://persianney.com/misc/container.html

Right click to download I think.

Look forward to your opinion.

Kees

Here are the measured beat rates as well as inharmonicity values.

Measured inharmonicity values:
F3 .435
F# .435
G .475
G# .458
A .557
A# .548
B .542
C4 .670 (here is a kind of mini-break)
C# .693
D .743
D# .661
E .828
F4 .734
F# .888
G .853
G# .843
A 1.026

In setting tuning partial 2 was used except for A4, which used partial 1.
(This is tunelab default.)

Measured M3 beatrates

F3A 6.7
F#A# 7.0
GB 7.1
G#C 8.6 (large jump concides with mini-break)
AC# 8.8
A#D 8.9
BD# 9.9
C4E 9.2 (here we've crossed the mini-break)
C#F 9.5
DF# 10.0
D#G 10.9
EG# 12.0
F4A 11.0 (here A was measured on partial 1)

M6

F3D 7.5 (all across mini-break)
F#D# 8.2
GE 8.5
G#F 9.5
AF# 9.7
A#G 9.7
BG# 10.4
C4A 9.4 (except this one)

Kees
Posted by: Chris Storch

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/28/13 09:41 PM

Kees,

Was there a prize for the technician who guessed right?

I be curious to know if there was are wire size changes that coincide with the step changes in IH you measured.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/28/13 09:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Kees,

Was there a prize for the technician who guessed right?

I be curious to know if there was are wire size changes that coincide with the step changes in IH you measured.

The premise was that technicians don't have to guess but can hear those beatrates very accurately, which does not seem to be the case from the limited data posted. No wire size change that I can measure.

Kees
Posted by: Chris Storch

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/28/13 09:55 PM

Interesting.

You need more data. Do another one! smile
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/28/13 11:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Interesting.

You need more data. Do another one! smile

I might if there were more responses. I guess it's easier to claim to be able to accurately hear beat speeds than to actually demonstrate this.

Regarding the explanation of the non progressive M3 pair B3D#C4E, it is not a tunelab error that CE is slower, rather it is tunelabs premise that it is best so have smooth pitch progressions, even in the face of a jump in IH, even at the cost of non progressive M3's.

It remains to be seen if an aural tuning with focus on M3/M6 progressiveness would sound better.

I believe that for a well scaled piano without such nasty jumps in IH a tunelab tuning would produce progressive M3/M6 and in such a case that is a great operational criterium for a tuning being a correct ET. Unfortunately I don't have access to such an instrument to mess with.

Another thing to keep in mind is that requiring progressive M3/M6 is a theoretical criterium, and as such may not have direct bearing on the music being played. Isaac's definition of ET as a tuning where every key sounds the same is really the only correct one, but unfortunately it is a subjective one.

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 07:24 AM

OK, I did not look at the answers yet, if that is what Kees long post is. Here are the M3s that seemed slower than the one below:

F#3
G3
A3
B3
D3
F4

It was so wierd listening for just an interval being out of sequence instead of the more necessary and practical and difficult job of deciding which note(s) should be adjusted and in what direction. I really have only about 80% confidence in my results.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 07:30 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
.....

Here are the M3s that seemed slower than the one below:

F#3
G3
A3
B3
D3
F4

.....


Originally Posted By: DoelKees
.....

Measured M3 beatrates

F3A 6.7
F#A# 7.0
GB 7.1
G#C 8.6 (large jump concides with mini-break)
AC# 8.8
A#D 8.9
BD# 9.9
C4E 9.2 (here we've crossed the mini-break)
C#F 9.5
DF# 10.0
D#G 10.9
EG# 12.0
F4A 11.0 (here A was measured on partial 1)

.....

Kees


Huh! I guess I suck at this!
Posted by: bkw58

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees

I might if there were more responses. I guess it's easier to claim to be able to accurately hear beat speeds than to actually demonstrate this.

Kees


Was enjoying this exchange until the unnecessary non causa pro causa. Doesn't exactly motivate one to participation.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 09:56 AM

Fwiw, if you use the beatrates of F3-A3 and F4-A4 and construct a logarithmic curve (as you would expect beatrates to behave) this is the result compared to how tunelab tuned:

Measured M3 beatrates

F3A 6.7 -- 6.7
F#A# 7.0 -- 7.0
GB 7.1 -- 7.3
G#C 8.6 -- 7.6 (large jump concides with mini-break)
AC# 8.8 -- 7.9
A#D 8.9 -- 8.2
BD# 9.9 -- 8.5
C4E 9.2 -- 8.9 (here we've crossed the mini-break)
C#F 9.5 -- 9.3
DF# 10.0 -- 9.7
D#G 10.9 -- 10.1
EG# 12.0 -- 10.6
F4A 11.0 -- 11.0 (here A was measured on partial 1)

As I have mentioned before, the beatrate of M3s less than double each octave. In this case the multiplier is 1.64.

[Edit:] Hmm, but if you ignore F4-A4 you get a multiplier of 1.89 and the following beatrate curve:

Measured M3 beatrates

F3A 6.7 -- 6.7
F#A# 7.0 -- 7.1
GB 7.1 -- 7.4
G#C 8.6 -- 7.9 (large jump concides with mini-break)
AC# 8.8 -- 8.3
A#D 8.9 -- 8.7
BD# 9.9 -- 9.2
C4E 9.2 -- 9.7 (here we've crossed the mini-break)
C#F 9.5 -- 10.2
DF# 10.0 -- 10.8
D#G 10.9 -- 11.4
EG# 12.0 -- 12.0
F4A 11.0 -- 12.6 (here A was measured on partial 1)

[2nd Edit:] Was I actually comparing, in my mind, what the progression should have been rather than the absolute difference in beatrates ...? ...? ...?


Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 11:57 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Chris Storch
Kees,

Was there a prize for the technician who guessed right?

I be curious to know if there was are wire size changes that coincide with the step changes in IH you measured.

The premise was that technicians don't have to guess but can hear those beatrates very accurately, which does not seem to be the case from the limited data posted. No wire size change that I can measure.

Kees


I was pretty damn close!

Quote:
The first three thirds sound the same speed to me, G3-B3 sounds perhaps a fraction slower than the preceeding two. (6.7, 7.0,7.1 are the speeds, G3-B3 is a fraction slower than I would expect but not slower than the preceeding one.)
The next progress fine.
C-E and C#-F are slower than the preceeding thirds.(Correct. This is where the break happens)) D-F# resumes the progression. Difficult to hear above that, but E4-G#4 sounds fast compared to F4A4(Correct)

F3-D4 is too slow, F#3-D#4 too fast. (wrong)The next progress until A#3-F#4 which is slower, and the C4-A4 is too slow as well.
Typos, meant A#3G4, which isn't faster (but isn't slower) than the previous. Correct on C4A4.


The fact that a break was at C is unusual - is that a plate strut on a grand? What kind of piano is this?

I move my head around and play at different volumes to pick out the partials that I want to listen to. This was difficult to do here.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 04:24 PM

Kees I am sorry I did not take the time but a few intervals really did not sound right as D# G4 - FA EG#. (M3) of course all the too slow, or slowing, and in the 6 ths is tis clear that the progression is not there.

The jumps are mostly due to the display I suppose, are all notes sampled ?


I recorded more intervals today while tuning finally that vertical I have on sale. I will post that in a moment it is a sort of CHAS tuning.

Is it what you expect, Phil (I thought that hearing me tuning PR the piano could be of some interest, actually for a PR it was not that bad.


I do not need to listen to this or that partial, only for octaves be aware of what is coupling, I have read that there are two ways to listen. I listen for activity not chasing for a particular beat. I listen to what is strong and evident. (for octaves it comes from 2:1)

Regards






Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 06:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D

I was pretty damn close!

You are right, I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Phil D

The fact that a break was at C is unusual - is that a plate strut on a grand? What kind of piano is this?

It a 1903 Heintzmann upright. There is no reason that mini-break should be there. String diameter remains the same. Perhaps the makers anticipated tunelab placing C too high which results in a better CE M3 and thus something like a mild well temperament. (Joke.)
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I move my head around and play at different volumes to pick out the partials that I want to listen to. This was difficult to do here.

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I was pretty damn close!

You are right, I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Phil D

The fact that a break was at C is unusual - is that a plate strut on a grand? What kind of piano is this?

It a 1903 Heintzmann upright. There is no reason that mini-break should be there. String diameter remains the same. Perhaps the makers anticipated tunelab placing C too high which results in a better CE M3 and thus something like a mild well temperament. (Joke.)
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I move my head around and play at different volumes to pick out the partials that I want to listen to. This was difficult to do here.

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.

Kees


There are freewares, I am looking for one that I had and the name escapes me(providing the same type of real time "flag "graph (flag ?)

Not sure it can count beats !

Thank you for the offer you will have slow intervals long enough ... whenever you have time for that ...

Here it is.

intervals begin at F3 as this is the first plain wire.

I can record the break too but I had to massage the basses before retuning.

Just get that with my phone so I apologize for the quality , but at last it is not as saturated as the last time.

Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQMWJfbV94THZhRXM/edit?usp=sharing

PS it is a sort of maximum stretch tuning , I would not use more. but the 12ths are still tempered
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 08:18 PM

Here are a few chords with a lot of sustain pedal wink

I hope the tone not too horrible ..

It is a vertical W. HOffmann - dating 1987 , not yet refurthingized.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQTnRRN1ppZXpPZ3M/edit?usp=sharing
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 08:23 PM

I keep meaning to do a recording when I get a piano that's worth recording my tuning on. My piano is definitely overdue one! I'll take you up on the offer when I do.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/29/13 08:56 PM


I don't see M3's in the temperament octave/range in that file, just M6's.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 05:02 AM

Yes they are on an other recorder, and on one string only. I forget.
There are 17 th 10th 15th 5 the 12 th.
Could you graph the 12 th s please.? Thank you.
May be I could record intervals again with a better recorder, the disk was full..

The piano is still moving, I will massage the wire and correct the tuning anyway.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 07:42 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
.....

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.

Kees


Yes, it doesn't matter if you can discern the beats, it matters if you can tune them.

When I want a clinical ET I will compare intervals by letting them beat 8 times (two beats of sixteenth notes) back and forth and see which one takes longer. Can't do that with a recording.

If I can find the time when I next tune my CW, I will try to figure out how to record the intervals. It is in the same room as the computer. Gosh, I have no idea when that might be. I am up to my ears in Cub Scout activities.
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 08:08 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
.....

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.


Kees

People can download Audition 3.0 for Windows here for free (after creating an Adobe ID):
http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

Would you be good enough to give us a brief heads up on how you use it to get beat rates?

Thanks.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 03:50 PM

Jeff,

I checked one of the pianos I tuned today. It was an old German 1.6 metre grand, called a Hagspiel. I pitch adjusted and tuned it, unisons as you go, using a 4ths and 5ths temperament.

After tuning the middle, i checked A3 to A4 with tunelab, one string of every note of that ocatve. I could have nit picked that octave before I checked, but left it as is. It sounded pretty good.

A3 - (- 1.2)
A#3 - 0.2
B3 -0.3
C4 - 0.1
C#4 - 0.0
D4 - 1.0
D#4 - 0.1
E4 - 0.7
F4 - 0.5
F#4 - 1.2
G4 - 1.6
G#4 -2.5

M3 B/D# - slightly slower
M3 D/F3 - slightly slower
M3 F/A - slightly slower

M6ths wre all progressive
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I was pretty damn close!

You are right, I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Phil D

The fact that a break was at C is unusual - is that a plate strut on a grand? What kind of piano is this?

It a 1903 Heintzmann upright. There is no reason that mini-break should be there. String diameter remains the same. Perhaps the makers anticipated tunelab placing C too high which results in a better CE M3 and thus something like a mild well temperament. (Joke.)
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I move my head around and play at different volumes to pick out the partials that I want to listen to. This was difficult to do here.

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.

Kees


There are freewares, I am looking for one that I had and the name escapes me(providing the same type of real time "flag "graph (flag ?)

Not sure it can count beats !

Thank you for the offer you will have slow intervals long enough ... whenever you have time for that ...

Here it is.

intervals begin at F3 as this is the first plain wire.

I can record the break too but I had to massage the basses before retuning.

Just get that with my phone so I apologize for the quality , but at last it is not as saturated as the last time.

Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQMWJfbV94THZhRXM/edit?usp=sharing

PS it is a sort of maximum stretch tuning , I would not use more. but the 12ths are still tempered


Hi Isaac,

I have listened to the three samples you posted and I think you have done a great job, really. Tuning that piano-brand is a real challenge... and I also enjoyed your impro.

You know what? Perhaps this time we (meaning we/PW's) will be able to elaborate on a standard...

Regards,

Alfredo
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/30/13 09:43 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I was pretty damn close!

You are right, I stand corrected.
Originally Posted By: Phil D

The fact that a break was at C is unusual - is that a plate strut on a grand? What kind of piano is this?

It a 1903 Heintzmann upright. There is no reason that mini-break should be there. String diameter remains the same. Perhaps the makers anticipated tunelab placing C too high which results in a better CE M3 and thus something like a mild well temperament. (Joke.)
Originally Posted By: Phil D

I move my head around and play at different volumes to pick out the partials that I want to listen to. This was difficult to do here.

You are right, the only way to really test yourself is to do this experiment at home and listen live. I will be happy to measure beatrates for anyone wishing to do the experiment. Not sure if there is freeware that allows you do do spectral analysis yourself.

Kees


There are freewares, I am looking for one that I had and the name escapes me(providing the same type of real time "flag "graph (flag ?)

Not sure it can count beats !

Thank you for the offer you will have slow intervals long enough ... whenever you have time for that ...

Here it is.

intervals begin at F3 as this is the first plain wire.

I can record the break too but I had to massage the basses before retuning.

Just get that with my phone so I apologize for the quality , but at last it is not as saturated as the last time.

Thanks

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQMWJfbV94THZhRXM/edit?usp=sharing

PS it is a sort of maximum stretch tuning , I would not use more. but the 12ths are still tempered


Some 12ths don't go through a whole cycle so I can't measure those. Here's what I got for the ones I could see and the M6's:

M6

F3D 8.1
F#D# 8.5
GE 8.8
G#F 10.0
AF# 9.1
A#G 11.5
BG# 11.9
C4A 10.5
C#A# 10.5
DB 13.3
D#C 14.2
EC# 14.9
F4D 12.9
F#D# 16.7
GE 17.5
G#F 16.8

P12

G3 0.30
A# 0.97
B 1.26
C4 1.04
C# 0.58
D 1.5
D# 1.8

Kees
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 06:48 AM

I pitch adjusted and tuned a 1.7 metre August Forster grand this morning, using a 4ths and 5ths temperament,unisons as I go. I did tweak this temperament.

The negatives are in brackets.

A3- (-0.1)
A#3- (-2)
B3- (0.2)
C4- (-0.1)
C#4- (-0.2)
D4- (-0.6)
D#4- 0.4
E4- (-0.3)
F4- (-0.2)
F#4- 0.1
G4- 0.3
G#4- 0.6
A4- 0.2

3rds and 6ths progressive

FWIW


Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 08:33 AM

Thanks, Mark:

After my poor evaluation of Kees audio file, I think I will keep my opinions to myself until I post my own audio file and get feedback. I will just have to find the time to squeeze it in.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 09:00 AM

I just wanted to get back to you with some numbers, as I said I would.

I have recently begun to tune unisons as I go, temperament included, even for pitch adjusting. It has been an interesting experience, particularly, shimming the temperament after the initial setting of it.

All the best with the scouts!

Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 09:17 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I just wanted to get back to you with some numbers, as I said I would.

I have rently begun to tune unisons as I go, temperament included, even for pitch adjusting. It has been an interesting experience, particularly, shimming the temperament after the initial setting of it.

All the best with the scouts!



I am unsure what you are prooving here. IS it that a 4th and 5th temperament is good enough for consistency in FBI's ?

If so I agree, you could also record it.

I will try to listen to my record compare the numbers obtained by Kees with what is heard.

I strip mute and it is part of the method, that mean the pitches are not really tuned directly but settle naturally.
It leaves eventually some mistakes as around the plate braces (here f5) but it is a good training to evaluate how much the bridge is moving when tuning.

Tuning unison as you go is faster, it oblige to work the technique of "shimming" (adding the wanted beat level directly in the unison to correct pitches). An important tool for the tuner, particularly when working in octaves as when one have the habit of listening to small corrections in a lot of parasitic noises, he can tune more "directly" than when he need to compare different intervals and beat speeds.

Now when tuning with unisons directly, unless the piano is almost at pitch , one have to take in account the settling.

the danger is getting stuck in stretch then. Those days I hear any noticeable stretch as something that have not its place and that lower the tonal impression.

All aging tuners tend to do so, apparently (may be due to a lower perception of extra high frequencies, my son for instance hear an electronic composant whisle that I do not)

As I refer more to energy (coupling energy) than to partial matches , for tuning, this is not so much of a problem I think.

The "CHAS" is a kind of resonance that have a particular color, so it can be noticed "easily" when looking for pitches.
The tempered 12th maintain some warmness to the M chords, if not, they tend to get so much active they loose meaning IMHO.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 09:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
I just wanted to get back to you with some numbers, as I said I would.

I have recently begun to tune unisons as I go, temperament included, even for pitch adjusting. It has been an interesting experience, particularly, shimming the temperament after the initial setting of it.

All the best with the scouts!



Yes, thanks for the numbers. I noticed some trends and it gives me some thoughts. I just don't want to share them, at least for now...

I have tried tuning unisons as I go, and do so outside the temperment strip. But I rarely tune pianos where the hammer mating is good enough to tune unisons as I go. The note I am actually tuning to becomes ambiguous; the "window" of being "in tune" gets larger than with a single string. By leaving the temperment strip in place, there are always single string checks I can use, even if the the note I am tuning to is a unison.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 11:13 AM

Isaac

What I am saying is that the 4ths and 5ths temperament is good enough to get a decent ET temperament in to place. I stand to correction, but what I have posted, especially the 2nd set of numbers, would pass the PTG exam for the temperament section. If I am right then, that speaks for itself, if I am not, then I need to, as I think most decent tuners do, continue to better and refine my tuning.

The other thing that i am saying is that tuning unisons as you go seems to have some advantages.

Jeff,

Hmmm, interesting!?

As for tuning unisons as I go, I am on a learning curve, so, some things that I perceive that are advantages need to become clearer to me, in order for me to come to a conclusion whether they are or whether they are not.

Thank you,
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 03:12 PM

MArk, the 4ths and 5ths keep you more on the musical side of tuning, and allow to secure octaves (M3 stack less)

Unison allow you to hear the final beat rate so indeed they are interesting.

I like slow beating intervals as you caa listen more easily to the way the energy dissipate when 2 notes are played together.

The same happen with fast beating ones, probably , I feel that too fast M3 are sort of loosing energy, fight themselves, if you see what I mean.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 07:24 PM


Hi,

Two considerations and one question:

ET ratios can be infinite, we have said that, but... How many ET Pure-ratios can we tune (and sell) in our actual practice? I shall answer: one. This ratio seems to have some success today, it is pure-12ths.

How about having it as The ET standard reference...? After all, it is easy to check (both aurally or with an ETD) and it is "possible" to tune (meaning that it allows ET-progressive RBI's). Personally, I think it would be reasonable, practicable and realistic.

Isaac, I think you are right when you talk about Slightly Tempered Twelfth, that is what I prefer... Shall we call that STT and see if it... sounds better? :-)

The question (only for those who are familiar with small numbers):

How many pure_interval_ratios can be combined in pairs, and ruled so to provide an ET ratio?

23:23... one more heavy day tomorrow..:-)

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 08:46 PM

I agree, Alfredo. If a standard need be identified, that would be the best one.

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos. It's also a more precise point than the typical 4th or 5th and located beyond the octave.

What's your small numbers question? It sounded interesting but I didn't understand what you were asking.
Posted by: pyropaul

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 10/31/13 09:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos.


Would this be the 3:1 partial that's pure? What about 6:2 - would iH mean that there would be a beat on this one? Isn't a pure 12th just as impossible as a pure octave? I know TuneLab has a 3:1 mode and wonder if that will achieve this or not? It would be interesting if any ETD could do the 19th root of 3 - this gives 19 equal divisions of a perfect 12th - but the ratio is slightly different to the 12th root of 2 (1.059526 versus 1.059463) - this could be interesting as the ratio is very slightly larger.

Just curious.

Paul.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/01/13 07:21 AM

Originally Posted By: pyropaul
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos.


Would this be the 3:1 partial that's pure? What about 6:2 - would iH mean that there would be a beat on this one? Isn't a pure 12th just as impossible as a pure octave? I know TuneLab has a 3:1 mode and wonder if that will achieve this or not? It would be interesting if any ETD could do the 19th root of 3 - this gives 19 equal divisions of a perfect 12th - but the ratio is slightly different to the 12th root of 2 (1.059526 versus 1.059463) - this could be interesting as the ratio is very slightly larger.

Just curious.

Paul.


I strive to tune pure twelfth. I hear the 3:1, but never the 6:2. If tuning an octave I can often hear the 2:1, 4:2 and 6:3, especially with bass strings. But wound strings can be wacky, so I tune to both the 12th and the 8th by playing 3 notes. If I played just the 12th in the bass, maybe I would hear the 6:2.

But the so-and-so root of such-and-such just doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with iH. When the 3rd partial of the lower note is sharpened, due to iH, a pure twelfth will not have a 3 to 1 frequency relationship of the respective first partials. It will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH. (Can I hear an AMEN?)
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/01/13 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
[

But the so-and-so root of such-and-such just doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with iH. When the 3rd partial of the lower note is sharpened, due to iH, a pure twelfth will not have a 3 to 1 frequency relationship of the respective first partials. It will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH. (Can I hear an AMEN?)


The ratio seem to be describing the origin of the perceived resonant spot , as an "acoustical shape" .

The IH, at the piano is more or less "absorbed" depending of the amount of coincidence partials can be subjected too.

So when a model aim to a theoretical resonance between partials, the tone is purer.

About "pure 12th" it is not really 3:1 that acoustically pure 12th is not there, at 3:1 it sound too large yet.
That said tuning based on no audible beat at the 12th level are too enlarged to me, it is not necessary to go that far to have the benefit of the partial matching or not being far (that create crispness probably due to more immediate resonance between notes)

Building a temperament that tend to a pure 12th without sacrifying the tempering and the firmness of octaves was not easy.

Octaves are still important intervals, if they are just the result of a division of the 3:1 they have no value for themslves,

The iH of a given piano only can adbsorb a certain level of beating. Now whay do we want to do that ? the tone is warmer with tempered intervals. If it can be warm in some regions then crisp in others I am pleased.

The pure 3:1 have even more leeway than octaves in my opinion. I wonder if it sound too large due to the 6:2..


Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/01/13 07:52 PM

Hi,

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
I agree, Alfredo. If a standard need be identified, that would be the best one.

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos. It's also a more precise point than the typical 4th or 5th and located beyond the octave.

What's your small numbers question? It sounded interesting but I didn't understand what you were asking.


..."I agree, Alfredo. If a standard need be identified, that would be the best one."...

I am glad we agree.

..."Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos."...

Yes, ..."near-ideal..", again... we agree. The difference might be that it is not "...stretch", as if we were referring only to the octave, for me the ideal is stretch (or shape?) as referred to a Form.

..."It's also a more precise point than the typical 4th or 5th and located beyond the octave."...

What do you mean by "typical"? I though the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.

..."What's your small numbers question? It sounded interesting but I didn't understand what you were asking."...

Sorry, my problem, I'll try to sort it out.

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: pyropaul
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos.


Would this be the 3:1 partial that's pure? What about 6:2 - would iH mean that there would be a beat on this one? Isn't a pure 12th just as impossible as a pure octave? I know TuneLab has a 3:1 mode and wonder if that will achieve this or not? It would be interesting if any ETD could do the 19th root of 3 - this gives 19 equal divisions of a perfect 12th - but the ratio is slightly different to the 12th root of 2 (1.059526 versus 1.059463) - this could be interesting as the ratio is very slightly larger.

Just curious.

Paul.


I strive to tune pure twelfth. I hear the 3:1, but never the 6:2. If tuning an octave I can often hear the 2:1, 4:2 and 6:3, especially with bass strings. But wound strings can be wacky, so I tune to both the 12th and the 8th by playing 3 notes. If I played just the 12th in the bass, maybe I would hear the 6:2.

But the so-and-so root of such-and-such just doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with iH. When the 3rd partial of the lower note is sharpened, due to iH, a pure twelfth will not have a 3 to 1 frequency relationship of the respective first partials. It will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH. (Can I hear an AMEN?)


Hi Jeff,

Recently you were mentioning Indulgent Mysteries, we were talking about smooth progressions at the break...

I see a reason that might solve that mystery, in the last quote here:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1351184/35.html

And yes, an "aural" pure (beatless) 12th... "..will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH."

AMEN. :-)

Now tell me, can you tune beatless 12ths?

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
[

But the so-and-so root of such-and-such just doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with iH. When the 3rd partial of the lower note is sharpened, due to iH, a pure twelfth will not have a 3 to 1 frequency relationship of the respective first partials. It will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH. (Can I hear an AMEN?)


The ratio seem to be describing the origin of the perceived resonant spot , as an "acoustical shape" .

The IH, at the piano is more or less "absorbed" depending of the amount of coincidence partials can be subjected too.

So when a model aim to a theoretical resonance between partials, the tone is purer.

About "pure 12th" it is not really 3:1 that acoustically pure 12th is not there, at 3:1 it sound too large yet.
That said tuning based on no audible beat at the 12th level are too enlarged to me, it is not necessary to go that far to have the benefit of the partial matching or not being far (that create crispness probably due to more immediate resonance between notes)

Building a temperament that tend to a pure 12th without sacrifying the tempering and the firmness of octaves was not easy.

Octaves are still important intervals, if they are just the result of a division of the 3:1 they have no value for themslves,

The iH of a given piano only can adbsorb a certain level of beating. Now whay do we want to do that ? the tone is warmer with tempered intervals. If it can be warm in some regions then crisp in others I am pleased.

The pure 3:1 have even more leeway than octaves in my opinion. I wonder if it sound too large due to the 6:2..




Isaac,

I propose aural_beatless_12ths for two reasons: firstly, because it can be easily checked; secondly, because the piano will settle somewhere below that... do you know what I mean? :-)

Regards, a.c.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 12:19 AM

When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 03:36 AM

Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 07:36 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

The pure 3:1 have even more leeway than octaves in my opinion. I wonder if it sound too large due to the 6:2..




Isaac,

I propose aural_beatless_12ths for two reasons: firstly, because it can be easily checked; secondly, because the piano will settle somewhere below that... do you know what I mean? :-)

Regards, a.c. [/quote]

Hi Alfredo, I begin to tune them directly in their settled position, due to the fact I appreciate working with fully tuned unisons. To go there I had to be trained to be conscious of the quality of the tone with the CHAS ratio tuned.

Then I try not to stay too strictly tuning it, just to provide more "harmonic tinkling" to the ears when the piano is played.

I believe I can stay under the level of bad tasting and nasal sounding of too uneven tempering, controlling much intervals, but I may be wrong. indeed.

The idea that the piano is " a large temperament in itself" is covering the piano own resonance, and the way tuners deal with it (how partials are put together).

For me there is no difference between a C2 a C3 a C4 as it would if the piano is having a moving tempering all along.

The specific justness of the enlarged tempering is magnificent, but miss contrast, it is "too nice" somewhere..

A 5ths in temperament zone, if large (or small) must be find in the treble with similar qualities.

the iH change along the scale allows only to do so up to a certain level, as it seem to me that the piano is a sort of self tempering instrument, it tend to get smoother by itself.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 09:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk


The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.


How could it be when all the tuning theory I have seen coming from USA is based on partial matches, octaves being specifically called by their matching names ?

The term "non beating" is probably a simplification, meaning the beats are under the level of being too present.

They even can be invisible when blended with the speed at which the sustain fade away.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 06:49 PM


Adding to the previous post, Tunewerk, at 3:53 you will hear a 3rd, if you listen to the tonic, but it may well be the 6th you talk about, if you consider the dominant.

To All, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v_niyjAs4

(Edit) In the link below it is at 2:57, perhaps even more enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpPQqOYlgC8
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 07:26 PM

#2175760 - November 02, 2013 07:36 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: alfredo capurso]

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk

... //SNIPP// ...tuning becomes a very complex thing.



Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 07:50 PM

Yes. That's where I started.

Tuning becomes more complex after that.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/02/13 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Yes. That's where I started.

Tuning becomes more complex after that.


I see, if I understand correctly, you can tune "progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)".

That is fair enough, I am sure you will be able to prove that (with some recordings)?
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 12:23 AM

Sure, I could do that Alfredo. Maybe at some point in the future.

To what end, though? To prove to you that I can tune? I don't see how that is meaningful at all. Especially not when you invite me with a passive-aggressive challenge.

You will have to take me at my word that I know what I am talking about. There is plenty of detail in my writing.

My position is that your 'perfect beats curves' idea is false. If you look closer, you will find all kinds of variation in the curves. A perfect curve is only possible with a perfect scale. There are no perfect scales.

I think you are a great tuner with great understanding, but I think you are wrong about some things. Egotistic challenges only slow the progress of collective understanding.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 02:54 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?

Can you? Still waiting for your recording of progressive M3/M6's.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 06:49 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
#2175760 - November 02, 2013 07:36 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: alfredo capurso]

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk

... //SNIPP// ...tuning becomes a very complex thing.



Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?



Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Yes. That's where I started.

Tuning becomes more complex after that.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Yes. That's where I started.

Tuning becomes more complex after that.


I see, if I understand correctly, you can tune "progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)".

That is fair enough, I am sure you will be able to prove that (with some recordings)?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Sure, I could do that Alfredo. Maybe at some point in the future.

To what end, though? To prove to you that I can tune? I don't see how that is meaningful at all. Especially not when you invite me with a passive-aggressive challenge.

You will have to take me at my word that I know what I am talking about. There is plenty of detail in my writing.

My position is that your 'perfect beats curves' idea is false. If you look closer, you will find all kinds of variation in the curves. A perfect curve is only possible with a perfect scale. There are no perfect scales.

I think you are a great tuner with great understanding, but I think you are wrong about some things. Egotistic challenges only slow the progress of collective understanding.


Hi Tunewerk.

You wrote:

..."Sure, I could do that Alfredo. Maybe at some point in the future."...

I am glad for your good will.

..."To what end, though? To prove to you that I can tune? I don't see how that is meaningful at all."...

That would be meaninful in that it would "prove" (once again) to all PW's readers that a Standard is shareable.

..."Especially not when you invite me with a passive-aggressive challenge."...

Sorry, Tunewerk, what do you mean? Where is the "passive-aggressive challenge"?

..."You will have to take me at my word that I know what I am talking about. There is plenty of detail in my writing."...

That would not be a problem, I take many posters at their words, even if they are perfect anonymous.

...My position is that your 'perfect beats curves' idea is false."...

Ok, that is your position, but... we were talking about "standard".

..."If you look closer, you will find all kinds of variation in the curves. A perfect curve is only possible with a perfect scale. There are no perfect scales."...

Fair enough, on the one hand your sharings, on the other hand mine.

..."I think you are a great tuner with great understanding, but I think you are wrong about some things."...

More than compliments, let's talk about specific things.

..."Egotistic challenges only slow the progress of collective understanding."...

Hmmm.., I am willing to respond for my ego, if you can respond for yours we might be able to go "collective".

Now, on tuning & intonation: how do you (All) hear those M6ths... To me they sound sharper than usual. Here is the quote with the links:


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Adding to the previous post, Tunewerk, at 3:53 you will hear a 3rd, if you listen to the tonic, but it may well be the 6th you talk about, if you consider the dominant.

To All, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v_niyjAs4

(Edit) In the link below it is at 2:57, perhaps even more enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpPQqOYlgC8
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 07:10 PM


...And, between 3:00 and 3:02 she gets the 4th and does a vibrato that to my ear reaches the 5th, the octave above the dominant. I would like to make sure that it is not an allucination, would you (All) tell me what you hear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpPQqOYlgC8

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?

Can you? Still waiting for your recording of progressive M3/M6's.

Kees


Thank you, Kees, for enquiring. In these years I am meeting colleagues and friends on a one-to-one basis, not necessarely (read: not only) for business, for more than one reason.

I too am curious about analyzer apps., about their limits and approximation. I would propose you a rendez-vous, either where you live or in London, how would you like that? And if it is Canada, we could involve one colleague/friend of mine from Manitoba?
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/03/13 10:33 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?

Can you? Still waiting for your recording of progressive M3/M6's.

Kees


Thank you, Kees, for enquiring. In these years I am meeting colleagues and friends on a one-to-one basis, not necessarely (read: not only) for business, for more than one reason.

I too am curious about analyzer apps., about their limits and approximation. I would propose you a rendez-vous, either where you live or in London, how would you like that? And if it is Canada, we could involve one colleague/friend of mine from Manitoba?

How about instead just posting your progressive M3/M6's?

Kees
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 06:29 AM

Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 07:31 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

Now tell me, can you tune beatless 12ths?

.....


I strive to tune beatless 12ths just as a draftman would strive to draw a straight line. But when you use a magnifying glass, you may see that the line is a bit rough. I am sure that is the case with my, or anyone else's, beatless 12ths. Nothing is perfect, only within a tolerance. And any standard, which is what this Topic is about, must define the tolerance.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 07:43 AM

All:

I am looking forward to posting the M3s and M6s of a pure 12th temperment and finding any shortcomings through the analysis that Kees graciously is doing for us. Gosh, I just don't know when. It is not at the top of my list of priorities: http://thedailyreview.com/news/volunteers-helping-volunteers-1.1579313
Posted by: wcctuner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 08:08 AM

Jeff,
I know this is off-topic, but as a former cub scout leader, I want to thank you for your service to this organization.
My wife and I spent a few days in Towanda about 8 years ago. Her ancestors worked the mines at Barkley Mountain. We visited the old mine, and spent time in Towanda doing research on her ancestors. A beautiful city!!
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 08:10 AM

Dave:

I hadn't known there were mines on Barkley, Hmmm.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I strive to tune beatless 12ths just as a draftman would strive to draw a straight line. But when you use a magnifying glass, you may see that the line is a bit rough. I am sure that is the case with my, or anyone else's, beatless 12ths. Nothing is perfect, only within a tolerance. And any standard, which is what this topic is about, must define the tolerance.


Well said, Jeff.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 05:26 PM

with the adequate sequence (from the start), the "beatless" 12 th can be tuned directly while tuning the octave, just beacause of the amount of resonance.

The octave tuned can be considered as another "octave type" as the 2:1 ,4:2 etc...

Tuning 12th directly using an accessory to play the 2 notes together is not the same, as the 12th have as much leeway as the octave, in my opinion despite the strong 3d partial or because of it. (and the same "hot spot" assuming the rest of the piano helps.)

A very tolerant interval, makes it agreeable to tune, as 5ths.




Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 07:37 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Isaac,

I propose aural_beatless_12ths for two reasons: firstly, because it can be easily checked; secondly, because the piano will settle somewhere below that... do you know what I mean? :-)

Regards, a.c.


Originally Posted By: Olek


Hi Alfredo, I begin to tune them directly in their settled position, due to the fact I appreciate working with fully tuned unisons. To go there I had to be trained to be conscious of the quality of the tone with the CHAS ratio tuned.

Then I try not to stay too strictly tuning it, just to provide more "harmonic tinkling" to the ears when the piano is played.

I believe I can stay under the level of bad tasting and nasal sounding of too uneven tempering, controlling much intervals, but I may be wrong. indeed.

The idea that the piano is " a large temperament in itself" is covering the piano own resonance, and the way tuners deal with it (how partials are put together).

For me there is no difference between a C2 a C3 a C4 as it would if the piano is having a moving tempering all along.

The specific justness of the enlarged tempering is magnificent, but miss contrast, it is "too nice" somewhere..

A 5ths in temperament zone, if large (or small) must be find in the treble with similar qualities.

the iH change along the scale allows only to do so up to a certain level, as it seem to me that the piano is a sort of self tempering instrument, it tend to get smoother by itself.


Hello Isaac,

I meant to reply earlier than this, anyway...

..."Hi Alfredo, I begin to tune them directly in their settled position, due to the fact I appreciate working with fully tuned unisons. To go there I had to be trained to be conscious of the quality of the tone with the CHAS ratio tuned."...

Yes, in these days I too have to resort to "fully tuned unisons", as "tuning" is often scheduled as a !one hour job!, but I still think that my favorite tuning requires two_strings_unisons at a time; in fact, the unison will "sing" the final pitch so... How the unison is done becomes crucial. On the other hand, perhaps this is only academic :-)

..."Then I try not to stay too strictly tuning it, just to provide more "harmonic tinkling" to the ears when the piano is played."...

Is the "harmonic tinkling" you mention any equivalent of Ed's "emotions" theory? :-)

..."I believe I can stay under the level of bad tasting and nasal sounding of too uneven tempering, controlling much intervals, but I may be wrong. indeed."...

I don't think so.

..."The idea that the piano is " a large temperament in itself" is covering the piano own resonance, and the way tuners deal with it (how partials are put together).

Yes, absolutely, it is about partials and resonance in a "large temperament", more than 13 or 17 or 20 notes...

..."For me there is no difference between a C2 a C3 a C4 as it would if the piano is having a moving tempering all along."...

I am not sure I get your point.

..."The specific justness of the enlarged tempering is magnificent, but miss contrast, it is "too nice" somewhere.."...

Hmmm... yes, somewhere else you were saying that it gets boring?

..."A 5ths in temperament zone, if large (or small) must be find in the treble with similar qualities."...

I do not agree, IMO all intervals have a larger "ear" leeway in the mid-section...

..."...the iH change along the scale allows only to do so up to a certain level, as it seem to me that the piano is a sort of self tempering instrument, it tend to get smoother by itself."

I agree, and perhaps the piano gets smoother first and then, like a baloon... it slowly deflates?

Best wishes, a.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/04/13 10:53 PM

Hi Alfredo, thank you for your answers.

I do not find it boring, but if for each tonality the piano is a giant chord, I wish those chords to differ somehow, but without rubbing .
This is done without noticing when using standard tuning, as the optimum consonance is not obtained immediately, it leaves the pitches more separated one another.

Trying to have things under control as using the scale unevenness to create those differences (moving the curve so it is not too straight to the ear, if you see what I mean.
Listening to the piano is more lively then.

It is very easy to fall on the badly sounding side, however...

In the end the CHAS lauching ramp sequence is so strong that it should be located at the worst place to create those different colorations. Or mixed with a different method, but it takes in account so many pitches soon the resonance appears and rule the tuning to the end.

Best regards
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/05/13 01:36 PM


Yes, Isaac, perhaps I see what you mean and I would not disagree, as individual we are enabled to refer to our own sense of musicality, and this may add character and liveliness to both the piano and our practice.

Originally Posted By: rxd
Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.



Thank you, rxd, very nice comment. As you say... common practice is "...better to be sharp than out of tune", and I still cannot get used to that, anyway... How about the sixth at 3:17 (link below), it has a fourth in the middle (the tonic) as mentioned by Tunewerk (down below): would you like it pure? Was that interval to be tension-less, would that express the meaning of that passage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsljT1362s

Regards, a.c.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/05/13 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

..."...the iH change along the scale allows only to do so up to a certain level, as it seem to me that the piano is a sort of self tempering instrument, it tend to get smoother by itself."

I agree, and perhaps the piano gets smoother first and then, like a baloon... it slowly deflates?

Best wishes, a.


Yes alfredo , see what you mean, I find it difficult to maintain or to install a certain crispness level on specific or above a specific location, while staying coherent with the way the mediums are tuned.

ABout the 5 ths leeway, larger in mediums , I agree, but I seem to have reflected the quality of 5 ths on a 3 octave span (up) on that vertical , without falling in Russian mountains with the fast beating intervals.

Not easy, certainly. it mean taking some risks, the use of Chas in treble may allow to temper that , but then the coherence is maintained only for a reduced serial of corresponding notes.

I will see again that piano I tuned very fast in 35 minutes using mostly "musicality" and consonance spot as perceived in a maelstrom of noise.

Certainly somewhat uneven, but also somewhat sonorous. Listening to that with quiet ears should be interesting. In the meantime I asked the customer (his daughter is a professional pianist and some are coming there regularly) and she is pleased with that tuning.
Strange.

The musical ear and brain like to be surprised, we all know that. that is what I like to experiment.

Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/05/13 03:41 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

Now tell me, can you tune beatless 12ths?

.....


I strive to tune beatless 12ths just as a draftman would strive to draw a straight line. But when you use a magnifying glass, you may see that the line is a bit rough. I am sure that is the case with my, or anyone else's, beatless 12ths. Nothing is perfect, only within a tolerance. And any standard, which is what this Topic is about, must define the tolerance.


Yes, Jeff, (let me be bad) you think "straight" when there are a lot of curves (beat_rate_curves) to be drawn (!) :-)

Now, jokes aside, even today I can only guess my pre-form and hope that the final tuning, after unisons, is the one I like. And, as you say, there might always be a point of imperfection, depending on the "glass". I find your observation reasonable but... I would proceed neatly, let's first sort out a reliable and practicable standard reference, then the "tolerance", which I do not think is a problem... actually, how many centuries of tolerance can we count? :-)

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 01:35 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Now, jokes aside, even today I can only guess my pre-form and hope that the final tuning, after unisons, is the one I like. And, as you say, there might always be a point of imperfection, depending on the "glass". I find your observation reasonable but... I would proceed neatly, let's first sort out a reliable and practicable standard reference, then the "tolerance", which I do not think is a problem... actually, how many centuries of tolerance can we count? :-)

It would be more productive if instead of producing verbiage like that you would post your progressively tuned M3/M6, that you asked other people to post, yourself. Even if you have to guess your "pre-form", whatever that is.

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 07:46 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
.....

Now tell me, can you tune beatless 12ths?

.....


I strive to tune beatless 12ths just as a draftman would strive to draw a straight line. But when you use a magnifying glass, you may see that the line is a bit rough. I am sure that is the case with my, or anyone else's, beatless 12ths. Nothing is perfect, only within a tolerance. And any standard, which is what this Topic is about, must define the tolerance.


Yes, Jeff, (let me be bad) you think "straight" when there are a lot of curves (beat_rate_curves) to be drawn (!) :-)

Now, jokes aside, even today I can only guess my pre-form and hope that the final tuning, after unisons, is the one I like. And, as you say, there might always be a point of imperfection, depending on the "glass". I find your observation reasonable but... I would proceed neatly, let's first sort out a reliable and practicable standard reference, then the "tolerance", which I do not think is a problem... actually, how many centuries of tolerance can we count? :-)

Regards, a.c.
.



Your english grammar is difficult to decipher. Too many posts with Isaac?

If the M6-M17 test for a 3:1 12th has these two RBIs beating at the same rate (as far as an experienced tuner can tell), then I would say it is within tolerance.

So then the beatrate of the 12ths is a straight line at 0 bps and all other beatrates are curves dependent mostly on the piano's iH but, yes, also dependent on the tolerance. Listening to other intervals will narrow the tolerance further.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 11:43 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


......let's first sort out a reliable and practicable standard reference, then the "tolerance", which I do not think is a problem... actually, how many centuries of tolerance can we count? :-)

Regards, a.c.




Do I detect some humour there?, the tolerance Jeff is speaking of is measured in cents, possibly centuries too, though. Why not? We've had to tolerate the tolerances that long.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 12:56 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
...

...[quote=rxd]Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.



Thank you, rxd, very nice comment. As you say... common practice is "...better to be sharp than out of tune", and I still cannot get used to that, anyway... How about the sixth at 3:17 (link below), it has a fourth in the middle (the tonic) as mentioned by Tunewerk (down below): would you like it pure? Was that interval to be tension-less, would that express the meaning of that passage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsljT1362s

Regards, a.c.


[quote=alfredo capurso]

Which member of the chorus do you want me to listen too? The chorus effect allows gloriously expanded intervals. With a chorus such as this, there is not the tension that would be present were the extremes of those intervals transferred to a keyboard. It would merely sound extremely out of tune, melodically and harmonically. It is difficult for me to imagine a chorus so lethargic as to sing this anywhere close to just intervals. This chorus is not a slave to any temperament and the allusion is not lost.

All these people are singing simply what they collectively hear to be right. That we might interpret it as sharp, flat, wide or narrow is furthest from their minds.

Since you refer to an earlier post from a third party about the discovery of still intervals, I would add that although it is a novel revelation to hear a truly harmonically dead third, major or minor on a static keyboard, melodically lifeless, for the first time, it's inversion becomes a glorious melodic sixth, minor or major that stands up vertically all by itself. What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment temperaments are.


Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Now, jokes aside, even today I can only guess my pre-form and hope that the final tuning, after unisons, is the one I like. And, as you say, there might always be a point of imperfection, depending on the "glass". I find your observation reasonable but... I would proceed neatly, let's first sort out a reliable and practicable standard reference, then the "tolerance", which I do not think is a problem... actually, how many centuries of tolerance can we count? :-)

It would be more productive if instead of producing verbiage like that you would post your progressively tuned M3/M6, that you asked other people to post, yourself. Even if you have to guess your "pre-form", whatever that is.

Kees


Kees, I hope you don't mind if I guess what is "more productive", and how and when.

For the time being, you may ponder on my proposal (below).


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?

Can you? Still waiting for your recording of progressive M3/M6's.

Kees


Thank you, Kees, for enquiring. In these years I am meeting colleagues and friends on a one-to-one basis, not necessarely (read: not only) for business, for more than one reason.

I too am curious about analyzer apps., about their limits and approximation. I would propose you a rendez-vous, either where you live or in London, how would you like that? And if it is Canada, we could involve one colleague/friend of mine from Manitoba?



Hi rxd,

I'll be back later... get dinner ready and read your post one more time :-)
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Yes, Isaac, perhaps I see what you mean and I would not disagree, as individual we are enabled to refer to our own sense of musicality, and this may add character and liveliness to both the piano and our practice.

Originally Posted By: rxd
Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.



Thank you, rxd, very nice comment. As you say... common practice is "...better to be sharp than out of tune", and I still cannot get used to that, anyway... How about the sixth at 3:17 (link below), it has a fourth in the middle (the tonic) as mentioned by Tunewerk (down below): would you like it pure? Was that interval to be tension-less, would that express the meaning of that passage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsljT1362s

Regards, a.c.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4


Originally Posted By: rxd
Which member of the chorus do you want me to listen too? The chorus effect allows gloriously expanded intervals. With a chorus such as this, there is not the tension that would be present were the extremes of those intervals transferred to a keyboard. It would merely sound extremely out of tune, melodically and harmonically. It is difficult for me to imagine a chorus so lethargic as to sing this anywhere close to just intervals. This chorus is not a slave to any temperament and the allusion is not lost.

All these people are singing simply what they collectively hear to be right. That we might interpret it as sharp, flat, wide or narrow is furthest from their minds.

Since you refer to an earlier post from a third party about the discovery of still intervals, I would add that although it is a novel revelation to hear a truly harmonically dead third, major or minor on a static keyboard, melodically lifeless, for the first time, it's inversion becomes a glorious melodic sixth, minor or major that stands up vertically all by itself. What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment temperaments are.


I do not mind the intonation of that chorus, actually I was asking if you too hear a M6th as an interval that evokes hope, or as an exhortation, or something like a caress... in any case a beating interval that (like other RBIs), if it was just... it would sound empty and meaningless?

If I may ask, what does that last sentence mean exactly..."What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment....", you know my English isn't good enough, is it a linguistic subtlety that alludes to something in particular?
Posted by: Chris Leslie

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/06/13 07:19 PM

Alfredo, you can always welcome to come to my house for a cup of coffee and chat if you ever visit Australia.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/07/13 05:47 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Yes, Isaac, perhaps I see what you mean and I would not disagree, as individual we are enabled to refer to our own sense of musicality, and this may add character and liveliness to both the piano and our practice.

Originally Posted By: rxd
Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.



Thank you, rxd, very nice comment. As you say... common practice is "...better to be sharp than out of tune", and I still cannot get used to that, anyway... How about the sixth at 3:17 (link below), it has a fourth in the middle (the tonic) as mentioned by Tunewerk (down below): would you like it pure? Was that interval to be tension-less, would that express the meaning of that passage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsljT1362s

Regards, a.c.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4


Originally Posted By: rxd
Which member of the chorus do you want me to listen too? The chorus effect allows gloriously expanded intervals. With a chorus such as this, there is not the tension that would be present were the extremes of those intervals transferred to a keyboard. It would merely sound extremely out of tune, melodically and harmonically. It is difficult for me to imagine a chorus so lethargic as to sing this anywhere close to just intervals. This chorus is not a slave to any temperament and the allusion is not lost.

All these people are singing simply what they collectively hear to be right. That we might interpret it as sharp, flat, wide or narrow is furthest from their minds.

Since you refer to an earlier post from a third party about the discovery of still intervals, I would add that although it is a novel revelation to hear a truly harmonically dead third, major or minor on a static keyboard, melodically lifeless, for the first time, it's inversion becomes a glorious melodic sixth, minor or major that stands up vertically all by itself. What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment temperaments are.


I do not mind the intonation of that chorus, actually I was asking if you too hear a M6th as an interval that evokes hope, or as an exhortation, or something like a caress... in any case a beating interval that (like other RBIs), if it was just... it would sound empty and meaningless?

If I may ask, what does that last sentence mean exactly..."What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment....", you know my English isn't good enough, is it a linguistic subtlety that alludes to something in particular?



I saw no evidence of a question this far off topic. . I'll close this by agreeing that hope is certainly expressed in the music at that point. It is standard practice (back on track) for opera composers to express in the music an opposite emotion to the predominant emotion of the text. Heightens the emotions.

The english language idiom "fly in the ointment" refers to something good being spoiled by a minor blemish. This sentiment also appears in expanded form as " too many flies, not enough ointment" etc.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/07/13 07:26 AM

Actually the saying "Fly in the Ointment" comes from the Bible:

"As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor." NIV Ecclesiastes 10:1

I think it is very appopriate to what is going on in this Topic right now and yes, Alfredo, you are the Fly in the ointment.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/07/13 09:08 AM

Something interesting from Samuel Wolfenden, which his book was first published in 1975,

"The temperament, by which some of the more used keys were favoured at the expense of others, had not long given place to the present plan when the writer had his first experience as a tuner, and there were still some middle-aged and elderly men, who were not able to adjust their minds and working habits to the new demands, and to whom the location of the "wolf" was a serious matter.

Presumably equal temperament is permanent, until such a time, if ever, as improved mechanism shall make "just intonation" possible."
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/07/13 09:27 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Something interesting from Samuel Wolfenden, which his book was first published in 1975,

"The temperament, by which some of the more used keys were favoured at the expense of others, had not long given place to the present plan when the writer had his first experience as a tuner, and there were still some middle-aged and elderly men, who were not able to adjust their minds and working habits to the new demands, and to whom the location of the "wolf" was a serious matter.

Presumably equal temperament is permanent, until such a time, if ever, as improved mechanism shall make "just intonation" possible."


Wolfenden was reprinted in 1975 and several other times from the original edition of 1916.

Just to keep things in perspective.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/07/13 10:07 PM

The STANDARD is the standard. It's fun to throw around these crazy ideas of creating a tuning that will satisfy every musician and their dog. But let's be honest with ourselves. We already know what the STANDARD is.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 12:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
The STANDARD is the standard. It's fun to throw around these crazy ideas of creating a tuning that will satisfy every musician and their dog. But let's be honest with ourselves. We already know what the STANDARD is.


Every time I see such a statement I am only persuaded to say that by creating such a standard and suppressing all knowledge about any other alternative, the standard itself is rarely achieved.

Just look at Standard Pitch for example. A-440 has been the standard for nearly 100 years. It was adopted world wide in the late 1030's but how many people and places routinely and rather wantonly ignore it?

The speed limit on a the highway is a standard but law enforcement has to have their own standard as to how much beyond that limit they will select to enforce the law. Otherwise, they would be pulling over nearly every vehicle.

Simply by saying in nearly every book about piano tuning that there is only one way to tune a piano, the result is actually just about anything but that standard in the majority of cases.

Let's say for example, as an analogy, you wanted to bake some fine pastry that takes knowledge, skill and experience to make the way a professional pastry chef does but you were given only a "guideline" recipe for it. Flour, sugar, salt, water, etc. Mix together, roll out, bake. That is all the chef thinks about but compare your results to his!

Now, take as a hypothetical, every person who wants to learn to tune pianos is told that the "A440-A220" temperament is the best there is because it was promoted by the world's leading piano manufacturer. It is the ONLY way to tune a piano! Every attempt at tuning a piano of any type, anywhere and everywhere uses only that information and nothing else.

Whatever those results would be on any piano anywhere at anytime would be considered to be the "Standard" but most of those results would fall far short of the author of that standard had in mind.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 04:41 AM

I believe we could classify between different types as :

5 th and 4ths same size and tone.

5th and 4th progressive along the scale

5th an 4th progressive along the cycle of 5th
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
I believe we could classify between different types as :

5 th and 4ths same size and tone.

5th and 4th progressive along the scale

5th an 4th progressive along the cycle of 5th



Would #1 and #3 be ET and, if not, how to describe them other than UT?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 05:32 AM

I'll leave the answer to the pros wink

Where does come the subtle difference between tonalities that can be noticed there , without creating any trouble in chromatic passages ?
To me the result of the fundamental tuning sequence, and the way the tuner listen while tuning :

Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 07:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
The STANDARD is the standard. It's fun to throw around these crazy ideas of creating a tuning that will satisfy every musician and their dog. But let's be honest with ourselves. We already know what the STANDARD is.


Every time I see such a statement I am only persuaded to say that by creating such a standard and suppressing all knowledge about any other alternative, the standard itself is rarely achieved.

Just look at Standard Pitch for example. A-440 has been the standard for nearly 100 years. It was adopted world wide in the late 1030's but how many people and places routinely and rather wantonly ignore it?

The speed limit on a the highway is a standard but law enforcement has to have their own standard as to how much beyond that limit they will select to enforce the law. Otherwise, they would be pulling over nearly every vehicle.

Simply by saying in nearly every book about piano tuning that there is only one way to tune a piano, the result is actually just about anything but that standard in the majority of cases.

Let's say for example, as an analogy, you wanted to bake some fine pastry that takes knowledge, skill and experience to make the way a professional pastry chef does but you were given only a "guideline" recipe for it. Flour, sugar, salt, water, etc. Mix together, roll out, bake. That is all the chef thinks about but compare your results to his!

Now, take as a hypothetical, every person who wants to learn to tune pianos is told that the "A440-A220" temperament is the best there is because it was promoted by the world's leading piano manufacturer. It is the ONLY way to tune a piano! Every attempt at tuning a piano of any type, anywhere and everywhere uses only that information and nothing else.

Whatever those results would be on any piano anywhere at anytime would be considered to be the "Standard" but most of those results would fall far short of the author of that standard had in mind.


What drivel!

Bill, you have a strong preference for how you tune, but so what? It cannot be used as a standard. ET can and is. Other tunings can and are defined by the deviation from that standard. Just take a look at the Rolling Ball website.

Again you are setting up a straw man to knock down. Anyone considering your approach to this subject should realize that you are not secure in your stand. Otherwise you would not resort to such a tactic over and over again.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 06:12 PM



Originally Posted By: rxd
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Yes, Isaac, perhaps I see what you mean and I would not disagree, as individual we are enabled to refer to our own sense of musicality, and this may add character and liveliness to both the piano and our practice.

Originally Posted By: rxd
Although this is a bit of a red herring in this thread, Lana must have lost the tenuous acoustical connection any opera singer has with the accompanying unit as soon as the assembled mob started behaving as though she had just scored the operatic equivalent of a home run. Considering how much of the carefully buit up drama would have been lost had she simplistically gone from the third degree of the scale to the fourth degree "perfectly" whatever that means in this context. In fact, the Bb is better regarded as the sixth degree of Dm because that's where the harmony is going. It has become part of a diminished chord. alternately, if we were to regard the Bb as an implied flattened 9th as current jazz harmonic theory would have us regard it, there is even more freedom of intonation, particularly that it is going to a Dm sus. I can hear that she knows that, even though she is out there all alone with nothing to guide her but her pitch memory and an overriding sense of the dramatic.

How much can she hear while she is producing a sound like that?? Anybody here done any singing at that level?

As we used to say, better to be sharp than out of tune. Many a true word Is spoken in jest.

A dramatic pitch vibrato at that level is behaving, acoustically, like a trill so any hint of a note higher sounds legitimate.
Given that the voice is on a different tonal plane than the orchestra, which can barely be heard anyway at that point. (the predominant first violin in the ensuing tutti seems caught up in the excitement), she is literally out there on her own and does a superb job despite the heat of the television lighting.

I also speak as one who in another lifetime sat in opera house orchestra pits, often playing the same notes an octave lower than the singer as part of the supporting harmony. As I was told all those years ago, they need something to be sharp to in those moments. I also worked in units where it was a requirement for the lead trumpet to be just a trace sharp for the more dramatic moments.

What we heard is standard practice in hot and emotionally charged opera houses the world over.

And now, back to your scheduled program.



Thank you, rxd, very nice comment. As you say... common practice is "...better to be sharp than out of tune", and I still cannot get used to that, anyway... How about the sixth at 3:17 (link below), it has a fourth in the middle (the tonic) as mentioned by Tunewerk (down below): would you like it pure? Was that interval to be tension-less, would that express the meaning of that passage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFsljT1362s

Regards, a.c.


Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".


Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?


Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Originally Posted By: Alfredo
What do you mean by "typical"? I thought the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.


What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.


Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4


Originally Posted By: rxd
Which member of the chorus do you want me to listen too? The chorus effect allows gloriously expanded intervals. With a chorus such as this, there is not the tension that would be present were the extremes of those intervals transferred to a keyboard. It would merely sound extremely out of tune, melodically and harmonically. It is difficult for me to imagine a chorus so lethargic as to sing this anywhere close to just intervals. This chorus is not a slave to any temperament and the allusion is not lost.

All these people are singing simply what they collectively hear to be right. That we might interpret it as sharp, flat, wide or narrow is furthest from their minds.

Since you refer to an earlier post from a third party about the discovery of still intervals, I would add that although it is a novel revelation to hear a truly harmonically dead third, major or minor on a static keyboard, melodically lifeless, for the first time, it's inversion becomes a glorious melodic sixth, minor or major that stands up vertically all by itself. What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment temperaments are.


I do not mind the intonation of that chorus, actually I was asking if you too hear a M6th as an interval that evokes hope, or as an exhortation, or something like a caress... in any case a beating interval that (like other RBIs), if it was just... it would sound empty and meaningless?

If I may ask, what does that last sentence mean exactly..."What a fascinating mixture of flies and ointment....", you know my English isn't good enough, is it a linguistic subtlety that alludes to something in particular?





I saw no evidence of a question this far off topic. . I'll close this by agreeing that hope is certainly expressed in the music at that point. It is standard practice (back on track) for opera composers to express in the music an opposite emotion to the predominant emotion of the text. Heightens the emotions.

The english language idiom "fly in the ointment" refers to something good being spoiled by a minor blemish. This sentiment also appears in expanded form as " too many flies, not enough ointment" etc.


Thank you, rxd, for your delucidation.

Perhaps I'll close that with a question: which is the "minor blemish" you would think of, when it comes to temperaments?

Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
Alfredo, you can always welcome to come to my house for a cup of coffee and chat if you ever visit Australia.


Thank you, Chris, I do hope we can meet sometime...

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/08/13 06:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
The STANDARD is the standard. It's fun to throw around these crazy ideas of creating a tuning that will satisfy every musician and their dog. But let's be honest with ourselves. We already know what the STANDARD is.


Honest with your... dog, what would you say the STANDARD is, Gary?
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/09/13 06:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
The STANDARD is the standard. It's fun to throw around these crazy ideas of creating a tuning that will satisfy every musician and their dog. But let's be honest with ourselves. We already know what the STANDARD is.


Every time I see such a statement I am only persuaded to say that by creating such a standard and suppressing all knowledge about any other alternative, the standard itself is rarely achieved.

Just look at Standard Pitch for example. A-440 has been the standard for nearly 100 years. It was adopted world wide in the late 1030's but how many people and places routinely and rather wantonly ignore it?

The speed limit on a the highway is a standard but law enforcement has to have their own standard as to how much beyond that limit they will select to enforce the law. Otherwise, they would be pulling over nearly every vehicle.

Simply by saying in nearly every book about piano tuning that there is only one way to tune a piano, the result is actually just about anything but that standard in the majority of cases.

Let's say for example, as an analogy, you wanted to bake some fine pastry that takes knowledge, skill and experience to make the way a professional pastry chef does but you were given only a "guideline" recipe for it. Flour, sugar, salt, water, etc. Mix together, roll out, bake. That is all the chef thinks about but compare your results to his!

Now, take as a hypothetical, every person who wants to learn to tune pianos is told that the "A440-A220" temperament is the best there is because it was promoted by the world's leading piano manufacturer. It is the ONLY way to tune a piano! Every attempt at tuning a piano of any type, anywhere and everywhere uses only that information and nothing else.

Whatever those results would be on any piano anywhere at anytime would be considered to be the "Standard" but most of those results would fall far short of the author of that standard had in mind.


Hi Bill,

You wrote:

..."Every time I see such a statement I am only persuaded to say that by creating such a standard and suppressing all knowledge about any other alternative, the standard itself is rarely achieved."...

IMO, the two things are not exclusive, one can have knowledge of the standard and about "any other alternative"; perhaps "how" or "how often" they are actually achieved is a different matter?

..."Just look at Standard Pitch for example. A-440 has been the standard for nearly 100 years. It was adopted world wide in the late 1030's but how many people and places routinely and rather wantonly ignore it?"...

Well, there will always be extreme cases, but the scenery would be even worst if we did not have a reference Pitch.

..."The speed limit on a the highway is a standard but law enforcement has to have their own standard as to how much beyond that limit they will select to enforce the law. Otherwise, they would be pulling over nearly every vehicle."...

In deed, Jeff was also mentioning "tolerance", and we see that the musical world is pretty tolerant already, I do not see any problem.

..."Simply by saying in nearly every book about piano tuning that there is only one way to tune a piano, the result is actually just about anything but that standard in the majority of cases."...

If you are referring to ET, perhaps that is due to the impracticability of the first ET model. In any case, I do not think a Standard should be understood as the Law, but as a reliable reference that anyone might be enabled to put into practice.

..."Let's say for example, as an analogy, you wanted to bake some fine pastry that takes knowledge, skill and experience to make the way a professional pastry chef does but you were given only a "guideline" recipe for it. Flour, sugar, salt, water, etc. Mix together, roll out, bake. That is all the chef thinks about but compare your results to his!"...

OK, but... were we given the "guideline" for tuning 88 keys? IMO, this is the bottom problem, the few things we were told be enough for achieving a... faulty standard-model. Really, I would like you to ponder on this: we need a standard that rules the octave, yes, an octave that (as you well know) needs to be "stretched"; by consequence, we need to define a convenient limit, but not only this; this time we want to make sure that the "limit" is not only convenient, but also practicable and easy to verify.

..."Now, take as a hypothetical, every person who wants to learn to tune pianos is told that the "A440-A220" temperament is the best there is because it was promoted by the world's leading piano manufacturer. It is the ONLY way to tune a piano! Every attempt at tuning a piano of any type, anywhere and everywhere uses only that information and nothing else."...

Well, Bill, should not we think positive and realistic, instead of hyperbolic or catastrophic?

..."Whatever those results would be on any piano anywhere at anytime would be considered to be the "Standard" but most of those results would fall far short of the author of that standard had in mind."...

I think we should simply solve a few flaws, no need to fight against all possible variations.

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/09/13 11:17 AM

Hi Kess here ar ethe intervals I recorded.
The tuning is very sonorous, and could have be backtracked a little more certainly

I noticed some different effects.

For instance when playing the interval of 12th plus an octave, the justness of the top not make a reinforcement of the phantom note of the twelve (not played but almost heard as if it was)

The same happen with 17th plus an octave that make a somehow lively interval

The beat rates in 17 ths is not "straight" but fluctuates a bit at attack time, that must be a result of the way unisons are tuned (some are a little wild but OK for me)

I dont really know where is the consistency located in such a tuning, most probably in the respect of consonance more than in progressiveness (it looks like some sort of Well tuning, while it may not be too difficult to make it "equal" , I hear 2 notes have to move to do so.)

to me f# is off limits, will be corrected as I must come back.

Obviously a good panel- bass strings are somewhat old, not very precise.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQdExIRHBfWlRXZWc/edit?usp=sharing

Any analysis welcome. Thanks



PS the use of a A fork and E and D as first intervals is clearly audible, as those intervals sound often cleaner doing so and it is the case there.

Consonance respect (Chas style) is good to hide unevenness in beat rates.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/09/13 06:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Hi Kess here ar ethe intervals I recorded.
The tuning is very sonorous, and could have be backtracked a little more certainly

I noticed some different effects.

For instance when playing the interval of 12th plus an octave, the justness of the top not make a reinforcement of the phantom note of the twelve (not played but almost heard as if it was)

The same happen with 17th plus an octave that make a somehow lively interval

The beat rates in 17 ths is not "straight" but fluctuates a bit at attack time, that must be a result of the way unisons are tuned (some are a little wild but OK for me)

I dont really know where is the consistency located in such a tuning, most probably in the respect of consonance more than in progressiveness (it looks like some sort of Well tuning, while it may not be too difficult to make it "equal" , I hear 2 notes have to move to do so.)

to me f# is off limits, will be corrected as I must come back.

Obviously a good panel- bass strings are somewhat old, not very precise.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQdExIRHBfWlRXZWc/edit?usp=sharing

Any analysis welcome. Thanks



PS the use of a A fork and E and D as first intervals is clearly audible, as those intervals sound often cleaner doing so and it is the case there.

Consonance respect (Chas style) is good to hide unevenness in beat rates.

I can only extract the M3 and M6 beatrates:

M3

F3A 7.3
F#A# 8.8
GB 8.7
G#C 7.9
AC# 9.6
A#D 7.7
BD# 10.4
C4E 10.9
C#F 12.0
DF# 13.5
D#G 10.4
EG# 12.7
F4A 9.8
F#A# 13.8
GB 14.9
G#C 15.4

M6

F3D 8.5
F#D# 8.3
GE 90.0
G#F 10.4
AF# 11.9
A#G 9.9
BG# 10.6
C4A 10.7
C#A# 13.3
DB 13.4
D#C 12.0
EC# 15.6
F4D 12.4
F#D# 12.9


Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/17/13 06:02 PM


Hi All,

In order to find this Topic... I had to go back to page 6(!).

"Should There Be A Standard?"..., I thought it was a good question... I well remember my first years, when I was trying to tune 12th_root_of_two without having a clue on how to tune it and then expand the first octave.

Dear Colleagues (mature aural tuners), do you remember your first years...?

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/17/13 06:09 PM

Hardly, but I had more questions in mind than today, certainly.

And "why this tuner have a so magnificent tone and how does he do that ?")

Nobody could really explain much about tone quality and tuning.

But I was trained to tune nice octaves and nice 5ths before going with the "stretch controlled with partial match theory" , that begin to take the magic out of it wink

Referring to my results I always was considered as a very good tuner even when I was using more my musical ear than theory.
But I was unable to understand what I was doing.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/17/13 08:09 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Hi All,

In order to find this Topic... I had to go back to page 6(!).

"Should There Be A Standard?"..., I thought it was a good question... I well remember my first years, when I was trying to tune 12th_root_of_two without having a clue on how to tune it and then expand the first octave.

Dear Colleagues (mature aural tuners), do you remember your first years...?

Regards, a.c.
.






Yes, I do.

My mentor taught me that ET was a balance between all 12 keys. Tuned by 4th's and 5th's, checked with 3rd's and 6th's; as equally slow-beating as possible.

Unisons tuned by listening to the highest audible partial, octaves mildly stretched.

If it sounded musical at the end of the exercise, mission accomplished.

Ah, if life were still so simple...

wink
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 07:48 AM

Folks:

I am going to do my level best to record and post the M3s and M6s within a P12 later today. I figured out how to do an audio recording, but am having trouble figuring out how to post it.

Under FAQ it says: "Can I attach a file to my post?
When creating a new thread or response, you'll see a "File Manager" link on the "Full Reply" or "New Post" page. When selecting this option you'll receive a popup which will allow you to attach files to your post."


Well, I can't find the "File Manager" link. Any suggestions?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 10:50 AM

Put it on another server, and link to it. Attachments are disabled on this board.
Posted by: Emmery

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 01:04 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Hi All,

In order to find this Topic... I had to go back to page 6(!).

"Should There Be A Standard?"..., I thought it was a good question... I well remember my first years, when I was trying to tune 12th_root_of_two without having a clue on how to tune it and then expand the first octave.

Dear Colleagues (mature aural tuners), do you remember your first years...?

Regards, a.c.
.






Yes, I do.

My mentor taught me that ET was a balance between all 12 keys. Tuned by 4th's and 5th's, checked with 3rd's and 6th's; as equally slow-beating as possible.

Unisons tuned by listening to the highest audible partial, octaves mildly stretched.

If it sounded musical at the end of the exercise, mission accomplished.

Ah, if life were still so simple...

wink



You've nailed it fairly well and this basic recipe serves many of us tuners of "standard ET tunings" fine. There's is some merit to put a little more or less spice or salt in a dish for taste, but if one substitutes chicken for beef, you can't call it "Beef Wellington" any more. Not any more than a UT tuning can be called a standard tuning, in my books anyways.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 01:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Emmery
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Hi All,

In order to find this Topic... I had to go back to page 6(!).

"Should There Be A Standard?"..., I thought it was a good question... I well remember my first years, when I was trying to tune 12th_root_of_two without having a clue on how to tune it and then expand the first octave.

Dear Colleagues (mature aural tuners), do you remember your first years...?

Regards, a.c.
.






Yes, I do.

My mentor taught me that ET was a balance between all 12 keys. Tuned by 4th's and 5th's, checked with 3rd's and 6th's; as equally slow-beating as possible.

Unisons tuned by listening to the highest audible partial, octaves mildly stretched.

If it sounded musical at the end of the exercise, mission accomplished.

Ah, if life were still so simple...

wink



You've nailed it fairly well and this basic recipe serves many of us tuners of "standard ET tunings" fine. There's is some merit to put a little more or less spice or salt in a dish for taste, but if one substitutes chicken for beef, you can't call it "Beef Wellington" any more. Not any more than a UT tuning can be called a standard tuning, in my books anyways.


Thanks, Emmery! smile

I just get the impression around here anymore that if I postulate my tunings are based on what I described above, there will be shouts of "Reverse Well!" from certain quarters...

laugh
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 02:16 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
.....

I just get the impression around here anymore that if I postulate my tunings are based on what I described above, there will be shouts of "Reverse Well!" from certain quarters...

laugh



I have thought about this. Let's say you draw a line 1 inch long. If you add enough decimal points it will be either longer or shorter than 1 inch, but not exactly 1 inch.

Likewise, no ET is "perfect". If you add enough decimal points it will either be WT or RW. So someone could truthfully say that half the ETs are RW.
Posted by: SMHaley

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 02:51 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
.....

I just get the impression around here anymore that if I postulate my tunings are based on what I described above, there will be shouts of "Reverse Well!" from certain quarters...

laugh



I have thought about this. Let's say you draw a line 1 inch long. If you add enough decimal points it will be either longer or shorter than 1 inch, but not exactly 1 inch.

Likewise, no ET is "perfect". If you add enough decimal points it will either be WT or RW. So someone could truthfully say that half the ETs are RW.


Is it not splitting atoms anyhow?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 02:53 PM

No problem, but that is an intellectual posture to say so. I dare to have a tuning that suit well the pianist and the music, and can be played in all keys.

I mostly tune by memory, then before being too far I use checks, but the piano is sonorous and consonant. I begin to be good at that game.

I use consonance methods as CHas, pure 5th or pure 12th, for the result they give, but I wont the piano to provide me 5ths that can be of differnt venues.

In the end it is not that difficult , even when looking for progressive FBI the 5ths easily have different speeds.

I certainly will not compromise good sounding slow beating intervals just to have more precise progression of FBI.

Anyway how are the 5th supposed to be , in the temperament .All the smae speed ? progressive ? depends of the FBI ?

What matters is to have a sequence that allow the tuner to avoid falling in the UT totally, so not all sequences are useful.

I like some old recordings for the ET recipe (unknown) they show.

To use a "perfect ET" you need a perfect piano, and even then, is it worth the trouble ? Certainly no in my opinion.

When I was tuning with ETD the musical difference stroke me, while the old timers where not far from that apparently, they differed a lot in the result. They where pushed to more evenness by the 2 ETD users of the group, but when they could prep a pinao for a concert or recording, You find a really musical instrument the next day (or when coming for control)

While the very perfect tunings we provided where never considered bad, they keep us so tight in the "rails" it was very difficult to depart from there, and I find that really not funny.

It is not by adding mistakes that a perfect ET will be more musical, but by providing something coherent with the piano / music on the top of it.

Probably the software's are missing things, plus they do not put the tuner in position to hear them unfortunately. In my experience anyway.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 03:20 PM

Then it depends of what will be played. Modern jazz and contemporary music should be better with a tighter respect of the rules, but whenever classical music or old style jazz is expected, keeping tonalities is important, to me.

Just for the joy of playing.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 06:04 PM

Here is a version of ET I tuned on my vertical today

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQbmpxcGlQSU5kcDA/edit?usp=sharing

Not real ET, not far from it ..

I have to work a method for a better control , but at the moment I like it like that...

Here on a PLEYEL F (1930)

short impro.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaEFMVUg3Tjk1T0U/edit?usp=sharing
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 07:30 PM

OK here is what I tuned on a Charles Wlter Console. Break is E3/F3. A D3-A4 P12 is tuned. The recording starts with the M6/M17 test, then M3s then M6s. I think F3 is a hair sharp:

https://app.box.com/s/d993gdtyoh3oq9wwh525

So Kees, could you extract the beatrates, please?
Posted by: Grandpianoman

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/20/13 11:28 PM

Nice to hear what other tuners are doing!

Here is a tuning I did awhile back on my M&H BB ......yet another variation on "ET" . A tune we all are familiar with. smile


https://app.box.com/shared/static/mtrkhsllaag4xfhfwtbs.mp3



Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 02:03 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
OK here is what I tuned on a Charles Wlter Console. Break is E3/F3. A D3-A4 P12 is tuned. The recording starts with the M6/M17 test, then M3s then M6s. I think F3 is a hair sharp:

https://app.box.com/s/d993gdtyoh3oq9wwh525

So Kees, could you extract the beatrates, please?


M3 5.18
M17 5.19

M3

D3F# 6.0
D#G 6.7
EG# 7.1
FA 6.7
F#A# 8.1
GB 8.1
G#C 8.0
AC# 7.7
A#D 8.4
BD# 8.9
CE 9.9
C#F 10.9
DF# 9.9
D#G 10.9
EG# 14.1
F4A 12.9

M6

D3B 7.3
D#C 7.8
EC# 7.0
FD 7.9
F#D# 8.8
GE 8.7
G#F 9.4
AF# 8.2
A#G 8.9
BG# 11.0
C4A 11.5

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 07:22 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
OK here is what I tuned on a Charles Wlter Console. Break is E3/F3. A D3-A4 P12 is tuned. The recording starts with the M6/M17 test, then M3s then M6s. I think F3 is a hair sharp:

https://app.box.com/s/d993gdtyoh3oq9wwh525

So Kees, could you extract the beatrates, please?


M3 5.18
M17 5.19

M3

D3F# 6.0
D#G 6.7
EG# 7.1
FA 6.7
F#A# 8.1
GB 8.1
G#C 8.0
AC# 7.7
A#D 8.4
BD# 8.9
CE 9.9
C#F 10.9
DF# 9.9
D#G 10.9
EG# 14.1
F4A 12.9

M6

D3B 7.3
D#C 7.8
EC# 7.0
FD 7.9
F#D# 8.8
GE 8.7
G#F 9.4
AF# 8.2
A#G 8.9
BG# 11.0
C4A 11.5

Kees


Thanks! Looks like both F3 and F4 were high. Guess I got the P12 right, though.

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 07:40 AM

Jeff,thanks for providing that record

I still suspect that the beat rate impression (interval activity) differs a little for what is measured only at one partial match level.

For instance you would not leave A C# at 7.7, I suggest you are hearing it a little faster (?)

When using the 12th (when enlarging the octave) , the beat rate progression lowers a lot.
I believe that the limit is attained with the CHas method, then some progressiveness is retained more audibly.

Do you have some recorded music played with that tuning ?

Here is a very short few measures where the 12-15 ratio have been tuned a lot, but at the same time I want to retrain more contrast between modulations and tonalities, so I did "something" at that level

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaVE0SkxKSHVFazg/edit?usp=sharing


WHat is your point about "standard ? PTG exam ask the tuner to show he can follow instructions, that is the same here,with more leeway probably. The tuner is asked not to be enlarging much, to do something moderate.

Best regards




Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Grandpianoman
Nice to hear what other tuners are doing!

Here is a tuning I did awhile back on my M&H BB ......yet another variation on "ET" . A tune we all are familiar with. smile


https://app.box.com/shared/static/mtrkhsllaag4xfhfwtbs.mp3





You did that yourself ? sound extremely good, to me. ( a little "static" tonally wise, however.

The basses are a little taking power to the soprano, may be due to the miking of voicing.

It s indeed not ET, I do not get why it sound a little less contrasted than what I like, may be because of the even beating that is more present. Also because the enlarging goes mmuch toward the basses. (I like to "push" it toward the ssoprano, indeed at the expense of warmness of the top of basses)

Excellent job at unison level and it sound tight and stable, too.

Best regards


PS Think of the inverted "S" of the railsback curve , I tend to push the flat portion right and enlarge it, it gives a sense of progressiveness that gives more presence for the melodic part. the high bass region being higher, will influence the soprano more.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:45 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Jeff,thanks for providing that record

I still suspect that the beat rate impression (interval activity) differs a little for what is measured only at one partial match level.

For instance you would not leave A C# at 7.7, I suggest you are hearing it a little faster (?)

Audibly the M6 should raise in speed more, to me.

When using the 12th (when enlarging the octave) , the beat rate progression lowers a lot.
I believe that the limit is attained with the CHas method, then some progressiveness is retained more audibly.

Do you have some recorded music played with that tuning ?

Here is a verruy short few measures where the 12-15 ratio have been tuned a lot, but at the same time I want to retrain more contrast between modulations and tonalities, so I did "something" at that level

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaVE0SkxKSHVFazg/edit?usp=sharing


WHat is your point about "standard ? PTG exam ask the tuner to show he can follow instructions, that is the same here,with more leeway probably. The tuner is asked not to be enlarging much, to do something moderate.

Best regards






I am sorry. I really don't understand your grammar.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:47 AM

Jeff,

If you used the method that I advocate for tuning the initial set of CM3's, you would have easily found that F3 & F4 were slightly too sharp. Your tuning does not look nor sound bad, however and has no Reverse Well pattern or characteristic to it.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Jeff,

If you used the method that I advocate for tuning the initial set of CM3's, you would have easily found that F3 & F4 were slightly too sharp. Your tuning does not look nor sound bad, however and has no Reverse Well pattern or characteristic to it.


Thank you, Bill.

I have a feeling that the Fs ended up where they did because of how I tune the break. I usually tune with a 4th and 5th priority. Concentrating on the RBIs was a different animal for me. I know we differ on this. But notice that all the CM3s are definetly progressive? I am not sure how a CM3 based sequence would necessarily make the Fs lower in pitch

Care to post [a recording of] an ET RBI sequence?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: Olek
Jeff,thanks for providing that record

I still suspect that the beat rate impression (interval activity) differs a little for what is measured only at one partial match level.

For instance you would not leave A C# at 7.7, I suggest you are hearing it a little faster (?)

Audibly the M6 should raise in speed more, to me.

When using the 12th (when enlarging the octave) , the beat rate progression lowers a lot.
I believe that the limit is attained with the CHas method, then some progressiveness is retained more audibly.

Do you have some recorded music played with that tuning ?

Here is a verruy short few measures where the 12-15 ratio have been tuned a lot, but at the same time I want to retrain more contrast between modulations and tonalities, so I did "something" at that level

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6GjQDkF_AMQaVE0SkxKSHVFazg/edit?usp=sharing


WHat is your point about "standard ? PTG exam ask the tuner to show he can follow instructions, that is the same here,with more leeway probably. The tuner is asked not to be enlarging much, to do something moderate.

Best regards






I am sorry. I really don't understand your grammar.


I said the interval activity is not exactly provided by the beat rate at the lowest level. if not you would not left A C# at 7.7. I hear that interval faster than that.

Now what are you looking for ? a progressiveness of FBI or a level of consonance in the 12th, octaves, 5ths ? both ?

In the end the FBI speed does not say us much about how the tuning is sounding. Does not look bad nut it does not say much.

I believe that consistency in 12 ths is generally noticed in a light progression and some coherence in the M6, more than with M3
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 09:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
.....

I said the interval activity is not exactly provided by the beat rate at the lowest level. if not you would not left A C# at 7.7. I hear that interval faster than that.

Now what are you looking for ? a progressiveness of FBI or a level of consonance in the 12th, octaves, 5ths ? both ?

In the end the FBI speed does not say us much about how the tuning is sounding. Does not look bad nut it does not say much.

I believe that consistency in 12 ths is generally noticed in a light progression and some coherence in the M6, more than with M3


As I listen to the recording while looking at the numbers, I think the numbers are accurate.

The purpose of the recording was to judge my sense of beatrate progression. But other things are involved like scaling and pin setting.

My goal in tuning is to have consistent 12ths, octaves, 5ths, 4ths, M6s and M3s in that order.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 09:53 AM

Thank you for the answer. May be you are right,

Then those intervals (12th octaves and 5ths) , you could record them. the 12th is indeed a good rule to know the maximum of enlarging, and also it is very strong. Now it is not necessary to have them acoustically pure in my opinion.

Consistency mean consonance ? they are supposed to tone the same color, or have some kind of progression from low beat to pure ?

When spreading the temperament, you tune octaves to obtain the 12th ? I noticed the M3 are really at the end. The fun is that 2 totally different venues are obtained depending on what intervals the temperament is based on. it is not supposed to be so, but ...

Regards
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 10:01 AM

Olek:

Consistent: Having a character that changes smoothly through the scale.

No, I will not post the 12ths. The question is about discerning beatrates. I don't want to get Off Topic. Besides I have better things to do.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 10:16 AM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso

Hi All,

In order to find this Topic... I had to go back to page 6(!).

"Should There Be A Standard?"..., I thought it was a good question... I well remember my first years, when I was trying to tune 12th_root_of_two without having a clue on how to tune it and then expand the first octave.

Dear Colleagues (mature aural tuners), do you remember your first years...?

Regards, a.c.
.






Yes, I do.

My mentor taught me that ET was a balance between all 12 keys. Tuned by 4th's and 5th's, checked with 3rd's and 6th's; as equally slow-beating as possible.

Unisons tuned by listening to the highest audible partial, octaves mildly stretched.

If it sounded musical at the end of the exercise, mission accomplished.

Ah, if life were still so simple...

wink



very good resume
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Olek:

Consistent: Having a character that changes smoothly through the scale.

No, I will not post the 12ths. The question is about discerning beatrates. I don't want to get Off Topic. Besides I have better things to do.


You are welcome, I thought you where trying to prove that the M3 and M6 are relatively consistent when the tuning is based on slow beating intervals scheme.

Not at all OT in my opinion.

Regards
Posted by: Mark R.

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 02:39 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
But notice that all the CM3s are definetly progressive? I am not sure how a CM3 based sequence would necessarily make the Fs lower in pitch


The CM3 sequence would have compared, right at the beginning,
F3-A3 = 6.7
A3-C#4 = 7.7
C#4-F4 = 10.9
F4-A4 = 12.9
It would have compared the beat rates without knowing their absolute values.

Although you point out quite correctly that they are progressive, I would submit that one could have picked out that...
1) The difference between F3-A3 and A3-C#4 is too small, while
2) The difference between A3-C#4 and C#4-F4 is too big.

The remedy would be to lower both F3 and F4.

Perhaps this is what Bill was referring to.
Posted by: Grandpianoman

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 04:20 PM

Thanks Isaac....Yes, I did the tuning.....all this is a work in progress, learning how to improve my tuning.

Here is another example of this temperament. recorded the same day as the Rachmaninoff above.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/jn675d9vma4djqils45t.mp3

How would the professional tuning world come up with a "standard" when there are so many wonderful ways to tune "ET" etc?
Posted by: SMHaley

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 04:28 PM

ET is a hypothetical to begin with.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

Care to post [a recording of] an ET RBI sequence?


I have actually been thinking of doing that. My new smart phone can do some amazing things, including actual documentation of RW when I find it.

A couple of new guys in the area have wanted to observe how I would tune a typical piano. They had both bought the correspondence course that lots of people fall for because it is cheaper than the good one. Cheap tools and a C fork.

The sequence that the course teaches is the very same one as from the Braide-White book minus anything at all about RBI's. Just the straight 4ths & 5ths. Little wonder why none of them who use that sequence can get it right so they immediately go buy a Peterson Strobe tuner (also recommended by Dr. Braide-White and the correspondence course).

Last week I showed one man how to tune the whole piano by ear on a Baldwin Hamilton. That scale causes the F3-A3 M3 to be slower than usual. Today, I tuned a small grand for another man using the same method and temperament sequence.

Even though it is something I rarely do, the sequence I use produces perfect results every time. I am not talking about the Marpurg sequence either. It is the "Up a 3rd, up a 3rd, down a 5th" sequence that everybody thinks means I pull 3rds out of thin air but that is not true. I tune all 4ths & 5ths after the initial set of CM3's. There is at least one check available after each note is tuned and that is what keeps the tuner on track. There are no cumulative errors and no compounding of errors.
Posted by: OperaTenor

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/21/13 08:32 PM

Originally Posted By: SMHaley
ET is a hypothetical to begin with.


Does that mean it can't be a standard?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 01:07 AM

Originally Posted By: SMHaley
ET is a hypothetical to begin with.

So is everything else.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
OK here is what I tuned on a Charles Wlter Console. Break is E3/F3. A D3-A4 P12 is tuned. The recording starts with the M6/M17 test, then M3s then M6s. I think F3 is a hair sharp:

https://app.box.com/s/d993gdtyoh3oq9wwh525

So Kees, could you extract the beatrates, please?


M3 5.18
M17 5.19

M3

D3F# 6.0
D#G 6.7
EG# 7.1
FA 6.7
F#A# 8.1
GB 8.1
G#C 8.0
AC# 7.7
A#D 8.4
BD# 8.9
CE 9.9
C#F 10.9
DF# 9.9
D#G 10.9
EG# 14.1
F4A 12.9

M6

D3B 7.3
D#C 7.8
EC# 7.0
FD 7.9
F#D# 8.8
GE 8.7
G#F 9.4
AF# 8.2
A#G 8.9
BG# 11.0
C4A 11.5

Kees


Thanks! Looks like both F3 and F4 were high. Guess I got the P12 right, though.

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 07:17 AM

Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: SMHaley
ET is a hypothetical to begin with.

So is everything else.


Are YOU hypothetical, BDB? wink
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 07:24 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
.....

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees


You are correct. Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 07:43 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.


Greetings,
Barely attainable? They either or or they are not. Progressive thirds, sixths, and m3rds were considered the standard where I was taught. We were also taught to vary the progression if needed to render a fifth or octave more acceptable. Scales can interfere with our pursuit of mathematical perfection, but human ears rarely have the ability to hear any difference in the output of the piano due to minor deviations in step size between the thirds. I'm talking about 1 cent deviations at the most.

At some degree of resolution, there is no way for the intervals to increase perfectly, as inharmonicity would exert its unequalizing force. If we get to the realm of "How exactly progressive", do we stop at 1% deviation from the mathematical ideal? 10%? Where will it end? Once again, I haven't seen this small amount of inequality render the sound of an ET discernibly different.

How about if we define "progressive" as every third beating faster than the one below, and slower than the one above? This is easy to hit. This requirement doesn't leave too much room to get ET out of place, and if all the cumulative error isn't located in one place, will pass the PTG tests with little problem. It will be perceived as equal by any listener I have ever encountered, and any increase in evenness in the thirds will be academic, musically.
Regards,
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 07:49 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
.....

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees


You are correct. Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.

Are you sure? I thought the error margin was 1 cent and we computed the tolerance earlier to be 0.2 cent for progressive M3's didn't we?

I agree with your idea of the standard. The meter is also a standard but if I order a meter beer in a Dutch pub it could be 99.3cm.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 08:03 AM

When often the tuner does not leave a "perfect progression in temperament octave, this is corrected in 10th s when spreading, with some backtrack if necessary.

I was trained to tune those progressive M3 but hardly considered that as an ultimate goal, be it at the expense of slow beating intervals.

But the recipes for Chas for instance imply to listen directly to 5ths beat and also to some low activity in octave (not at 4:2 or 6:3, more at 2:1 in my opinion.
The
It provide in the end an extremely precise and slow progression of beats.

Seem to me that the tuners that focus on slow beating intervals obtain more consistency in the fast beating ones that way.

No much mistakes allowed in temperament, can be backtracked only up to 2 notes off.

Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 08:16 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
.....

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees


You are correct. Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.

Are you sure? I thought the error margin was 1 cent and we computed the tolerance earlier to be 0.2 cent for progressive M3's didn't we?

I agree with your idea of the standard. The meter is also a standard but if I order a meter beer in a Dutch pub it could be 99.3cm.

Kees


Sorry, I meant the PTG test allowable error, like 0.9 cents, before a deduction in points if I remember right.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 08:25 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark R.
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
But notice that all the CM3s are definetly progressive? I am not sure how a CM3 based sequence would necessarily make the Fs lower in pitch


The CM3 sequence would have compared, right at the beginning,
F3-A3 = 6.7
A3-C#4 = 7.7
C#4-F4 = 10.9
F4-A4 = 12.9
It would have compared the beat rates without knowing their absolute values.

Although you point out quite correctly that they are progressive, I would submit that one could have picked out that...
1) The difference between F3-A3 and A3-C#4 is too small, while
2) The difference between A3-C#4 and C#4-F4 is too big.

The remedy would be to lower both F3 and F4.

Perhaps this is what Bill was referring to.


I did notice that both the F3-A3 and the F3-D4 were slow indicating that F3 was sharp but declined to give any real excuses. The sequence would have little to do with it at this point of polishing. Really, I had just had enough of fighting it and decided to make the recording. Another piano and another time, perhaps.

The dog would have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to take a ...
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 01:53 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: SMHaley
ET is a hypothetical to begin with.

So is everything else.


Are YOU hypothetical, BDB? wink


Absolutely! All persons, living or dead, are fictional, and any resemblance is purely coincidental.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/22/13 08:17 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
.....

So, Kees, your gracious analyses was to explore the question of how accurately experienced tuners can discern beatrates. This would be necessary to know to establish a tuning standard. I had scoffed before at how the PTG exam criteria seemed low, that progressive CM3s seemed suspiciously to be the standard. From the results of your analyses maybe that is the practical limit.

Do you have thoughts on this?

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees


You are correct. Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.

Are you sure? I thought the error margin was 1 cent and we computed the tolerance earlier to be 0.2 cent for progressive M3's didn't we?

I agree with your idea of the standard. The meter is also a standard but if I order a meter beer in a Dutch pub it could be 99.3cm.

Kees


Sorry, I meant the PTG test allowable error, like 0.9 cents, before a deduction in points if I remember right.

0.9>0.2 so you can score 100% with nonprogressive M3's.

Kees
Posted by: Grandpianoman

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/23/13 01:56 AM

I wonder what temperament this is, and whether we can gather any information for a "Standard"? Listen particularly to the tuning. wink

Wonderful instrument from the silent movie era...a lot of movie houses would buy this instrument to accompany the silent films...it came in different sizes as well. He must be one of the best in world at playing it. (watch what happens at the very end)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT1LTdUnyVk


adding a nice story about one of the pieces.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTGEvqEmR-4
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/23/13 01:32 PM

Quote:
The CM3 sequence would have compared, right at the beginning,
F3-A3 = 6.7
A3-C#4 = 7.7
C#4-F4 = 10.9
F4-A4 = 12.9
It would have compared the beat rates without knowing their absolute values.

Although you point out quite correctly that they are progressive, I would submit that one could have picked out that...
1) The difference between F3-A3 and A3-C#4 is too small, while
2) The difference between A3-C#4 and C#4-F4 is too big.

The remedy would be to lower both F3 and F4.

Perhaps this is what Bill was referring to.


Exactly! As I point out in my own version of "Let the piano tell you", when you compare a series of 4 CM3's (not just three), if the top M3 (F4-A4) is too slow, then the bottom M3 (F3-A3) is too slow. You then lower both F3 & F4, then possibly also slightly adjust C#4 so that everything fits.

Works the same if the top M3 is too fast.

When Jim Coleman Sr. was reviewing what I had written about that, I now recall that he said he had written virtually the same thin sometime in the 1980's. However, when you posted what he had written in another thread, that was the first time I had ever seen it.

I certainly have not seen or read everything that Jim Coleman wrote but it does show that when something exists to be discovered, it will be. It was actually Viviano, someone who was trying to learn how to tune a temperament octave and who was trying to help me edit my material so that it would be clearly understandable who pointed out to me that what I was doing was treating the F3-F4 octave as a pair. If one F is moved, the other must be moved by the same amount. If that does not yield the correct result, then try again.

Usually, it only takes one, maybe two adjustments of both F's to find the correct balance but for a beginner, I can see how one may have to go back and forth a few times before getting it right.

I would also like to say that there is no reason why a person cannot use a traditional 4ths & 5ths sequence that is practiced and familiar and then use CM3 tests to sort out ("nitpick") small errors.

In the example that Jeff posted, if he had listened to the chain of CM3's from F3-A4 after having arrived at the results in the usual and practiced way, the small error would probably have been evident.

In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/23/13 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT

In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.

It can exist, but this does not prove that it does exist. Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/24/13 10:51 AM

Something strange : as I am actually testing for methods to allow different levels of consonance in chords, so to favor more contrasts in modulations, I had to tune back to a "standard" temperament as I did before, using a F3- F4 sequence.

I immediately noticed how what some tuners call "the shimmering of ET" was back, it was mostly sensitive in the higher region of the temperament and beginning of the 5th octave. it get better for one octave and a half then, and then high treble can be acceptable, depending the way it is tuned.

In basses not all octaves are harmonious, notes are sounding as without clear link to mediums (again , depending of the compromising used)

The point there is not at all that "all chords sound alike" , but they have a strange behavior, that does not seem to have much tonal or harmonious "meaning"

I seem to hear that strange sensation linked to fast beat rates, which are in the end unavoidable, but seem to me that when the notes from the octaves , 12th, etc under the one played are consonant clearly, they lower the harsh sensation of fast beats (6ths M3 for instance)

I am not so surprised that musicians regularly seem to appreciate Well tuning, while I still believe this is basically due to a misconception of how to install ET on a piano.

My point is that tuners could work some high consonance tuning , so they begin to recognize the level of consonance they obtain when tuning in their more usual way.

"pure" 12, Chas, pure 5th, whatever, the quality of the "halo" provided and the crispness of the attack are the signs of consonance at a larger span than the octave.

Much of that being decided by the piano inharmonicity, we have not as much control as we think.

What I am after now is how to use the provided leeway to allow definitive changes in modulations "color" . (color = consonance level, to me, I do not wish to go farther than that)
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/24/13 11:03 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT

In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.

It can exist, but this does not prove that it does exist. Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees


I will record that if you wish, (did retune with "standard tuning" and stack of M3) there is always some small imbalance in the reconciliation of slow and fast beating intervals, but if the goal is to have progressive M3 or 10th, it is in now way impossible.

I am far from sure this is what gives the most consonant piano, but it is possible to realize, and the more enlarged the 1st octave is, the easier it is .

BTW the first octave is tuned "enlarged (focusing on 4:2 6:3) because the 5ths partials are then more easily flowing together)

Due to the way I listen to intervals activity, I believe I can leave some "mistakes" as my beat rates are influenced by more than one partial match.

I am also not happy with a straightforward beat rate that flow straight and relatively staticly from the intervals. That gives a somewhat harsh sensation. Ideally, the beats may flow like the tone of an unison, something that is firmly set but is flowing somewhat freely.

THe most audible beat rate is generally influenced by the second set of partials, this gives the beat rate some sort of "respiration" .

When tuners say they need to have a very quiet ear to tune, that mean they can allow anything to flow in a natural way, out of the piano.
Make sense to me.
Posted by: Tunewerk

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/24/13 11:04 AM

Excellent point, Kees.

I think we return to an important point here: there are a lot of tuners who overestimate their ability, or who no longer hear the imperfection inherent in their tuning. Imperfect scales mean tuning variations to find compromises over them.

The amount 4 notes would have to cumulatively vary is about 0.2c to upset the balance of CM3rds. However, if four notes cumulatively varied this much in one direction, it wouldn't upset progression. Localized variation is required and for a single note, this is about 0.76c.

This is underneath the PTG test limit for errors. Built into the PTG test is an understanding that up to 1.0c variations are required to find scale compromises in the temperament region.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/24/13 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees

I will record that if you wish, (did retune with "standard tuning" and stack of M3) there is always some small imbalance in the reconciliation of slow and fast beating intervals, but if the goal is to have progressive M3 or 10th, it is in now way impossible.

Yes, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind to record progressive M3/6 in the temperament range I would be grateful. I will believe it when I see it, and I think I'm not the only one.

Thanks,
Kees
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 05:43 PM

This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 06:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Tunewerk
Excellent point, Kees.

I think we return to an important point here: there are a lot of tuners who overestimate their ability, or who no longer hear the imperfection inherent in their tuning. Imperfect scales mean tuning variations to find compromises over them.

The amount 4 notes would have to cumulatively vary is about 0.2c to upset the balance of CM3rds. However, if four notes cumulatively varied this much in one direction, it wouldn't upset progression. Localized variation is required and for a single note, this is about 0.76c.

This is underneath the PTG test limit for errors. Built into the PTG test is an understanding that up to 1.0c variations are required to find scale compromises in the temperament region.


Hi Tunewerk,

Beyond "...compromises...", I look forward to listening to your pure 12ths ET tuning.


Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees

I will record that if you wish, (did retune with "standard tuning" and stack of M3) there is always some small imbalance in the reconciliation of slow and fast beating intervals, but if the goal is to have progressive M3 or 10th, it is in now way impossible.

Yes, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind to record progressive M3/6 in the temperament range I would be grateful. I will believe it when I see it, and I think I'm not the only one.

Thanks,
Kees


Hi Kees, I think you (and those you are hosting in your mind) may well start a new Topic, kind of "I will believe it when I see it", so that here you will make less noise for those who have already seen "it".


Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Quote:
The CM3 sequence would have compared, right at the beginning,
F3-A3 = 6.7
A3-C#4 = 7.7
C#4-F4 = 10.9
F4-A4 = 12.9
It would have compared the beat rates without knowing their absolute values.

Although you point out quite correctly that they are progressive, I would submit that one could have picked out that...
1) The difference between F3-A3 and A3-C#4 is too small, while
2) The difference between A3-C#4 and C#4-F4 is too big.

The remedy would be to lower both F3 and F4.

Perhaps this is what Bill was referring to.


Exactly! As I point out in my own version of "Let the piano tell you", when you compare a series of 4 CM3's (not just three), if the top M3 (F4-A4) is too slow, then the bottom M3 (F3-A3) is too slow. You then lower both F3 & F4, then possibly also slightly adjust C#4 so that everything fits.

Works the same if the top M3 is too fast.

When Jim Coleman Sr. was reviewing what I had written about that, I now recall that he said he had written virtually the same thin sometime in the 1980's. However, when you posted what he had written in another thread, that was the first time I had ever seen it.

I certainly have not seen or read everything that Jim Coleman wrote but it does show that when something exists to be discovered, it will be. It was actually Viviano, someone who was trying to learn how to tune a temperament octave and who was trying to help me edit my material so that it would be clearly understandable who pointed out to me that what I was doing was treating the F3-F4 octave as a pair. If one F is moved, the other must be moved by the same amount. If that does not yield the correct result, then try again.

Usually, it only takes one, maybe two adjustments of both F's to find the correct balance but for a beginner, I can see how one may have to go back and forth a few times before getting it right.

I would also like to say that there is no reason why a person cannot use a traditional 4ths & 5ths sequence that is practiced and familiar and then use CM3 tests to sort out ("nitpick") small errors.

In the example that Jeff posted, if he had listened to the chain of CM3's from F3-A4 after having arrived at the results in the usual and practiced way, the small error would probably have been evident.

In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.


Hi Bill,

You wrote: ..."Exactly! As I point out in my own version of "Let the piano tell you", when you compare a series of 4 CM3's (not just three), if the top M3 (F4-A4) is too slow, then the bottom M3 (F3-A3) is too slow. You then lower both F3 & F4, then possibly also slightly adjust C#4 so that everything fits."...

IMO, the problem with that sequence is that three or 4 CM3's are not telling you how the M3's in between will be, those initial 4 M3's are too far away and anything can happen with the remaining M3's. It gets much easier when you can compare M3's that are closer, like A3-C#4, A#3-D4 and B3-D#4, and it is much easier (I would say) to evaluate the A3-E4 slow breathing (a very slow beat), or the A3-D4 1bps beat, than having to guess how those 4 CM3's compare to each other. Of course, this is only my opinion, which is based only on my own routines.

..."Works the same if the top M3 is too fast."...

IMO, it might work, but it is far more open to approximations.

..."When Jim Coleman Sr. was reviewing what I had written about that, I now recall that he said he had written virtually the same thin sometime in the 1980's. However, when you posted what he had written in another thread, that was the first time I had ever seen it. I certainly have not seen or read everything that Jim Coleman wrote but it does show that when something exists to be discovered, it will be. It was actually Viviano, someone who was trying to learn how to tune a temperament octave and who was trying to help me edit my material so that it would be clearly understandable who pointed out to me that what I was doing was treating the F3-F4 octave as a pair. If one F is moved, the other must be moved by the same amount. If that does not yield the correct result, then try again."...

I agree, good practice is to check any other related interval.

..."Usually, it only takes one, maybe two adjustments of both F's to find the correct balance but for a beginner, I can see how one may have to go back and forth a few times before getting it right."...

I would say that we need to be willing "to go back" as many times it is needed, and once we expand the first octave we get more and more checks, like 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths, which may suggest we... go back.

..."I would also like to say that there is no reason why a person cannot use a traditional 4ths & 5ths sequence that is practiced and familiar and then use CM3 tests to sort out ("nitpick") small errors."...

Yes, I am glad you are open to other methods.

..."In the example that Jeff posted, if he had listened to the chain of CM3's from F3-A4 after having arrived at the results in the usual and practiced way, the small error would probably have been evident."...

Hmmm... IMO, there were three*2 other issues there, perhaps method*knowledge, accuracy*skill and will*head.

..."In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale."...

I agree on the last part of that sentence, "..It (edit: an indisputable ET) can exist on any piano, regardless of scale".

I do not agree with the first part, where you say "all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating"... Let me know if you want to know more about how 4ths and 5ths need to sound, and it depends precisely on 4ths and 5ths, if they do not sound how they should, there is no way you can achieve "truly" and "smoothly" progressive RBI's (all across the keyboard).

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 06:51 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!

I can't download that file, just play it, so I can't analyze it.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Hi Kees
[...off topic stuff cut...]
Hi Alfredo.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 07:35 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees

Yes, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind to record progressive M3/6 in the temperament range I would be grateful. I will believe it when I see it, and I think I'm not the only one.

Thanks,
Kees

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


Hi Kees, I think you (and those you are hosting in your mind) may well start a new Topic, kind of "I will believe it when I see it", so that here you will make less noise for those who have already seen "it".



Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Hi Kees
[...off topic stuff cut...]
Hi Alfredo.

Kees


Hi dear,

Yes, cut stuff and play digital if you like, but... how about starting a new Topic where you can analyze ad libitum and keep together all the material you get?
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 08:26 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

Yes, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind to record progressive M3/6 in the temperament range I would be grateful. I will believe it when I see it, and I think I'm not the only one.

Thanks,
Kees

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


Hi Kees, I think you (and those you are hosting in your mind) may well start a new Topic, kind of "I will believe it when I see it", so that here you will make less noise for those who have already seen "it".



Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Hi Kees
[...off topic stuff cut...]
Hi Alfredo.

Kees


Hi dear,

Yes, cut stuff and play digital if you like, but... how about starting a new Topic where you can analyze ad libitum and keep together all the material you get?
.

I'm probably wasting my time by responding, but since we have been considering progressive M3/6 as a possible standard for ET, don't you think determining if this standard is practical by examining if anyone can actually tune to this level of accuracy is on-topic in this thread?

Kees
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 11:06 PM

Quote:
It can exist, but this does not prove that it does exist. Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees


Kees, two things. That is the ET via Marpurg and from viewing Jason Kanter's graph, you would not expect perfect progressions, especially in the M6's. The main reason that video does not have better progressions than it does is that I forgot to execute the very last step: reconcile D#4 with the G#3 and A#3 below it.

It remains true, however that if the ET via Marpurg is perfectly executed, it will "pass" the PTG tuning exam. Several people I know of have done that. I am not allowed to talk about anyone's actual scores by name unless I have permission to do so but I do know of at least one person who passed the temperament portion of the exam with a perfect 100.

If I were to guess at what Jeff's temperament would have scored, it might be a 98 (only one "error" scored). But that is hypothetical because a Walter Console does not meet exam standards and there was no "Master Tuning" to compare it to. Nevertheless, a slight error such as is heard would probably score an electronic point.

The criterion for whether a scored point can be aurally verified is: Can the note which has a scored point be improved by either sharpening it or flattening it. If any aural checks (including CM3 checks) say that it can be, then the scored point is confirmed.

Let's all remember this: The tuning exam was set up so that only about 50% of tuners can pass it. After some years in use, the exam standards were tightened by adding multipliers to the pitch, temperament, midrange, unisons and stability portions of the exam. Today, it still remains true that only about half of first time attempts at the exam actually pass it.

This means that you don't have to be able to be perfect. No one has ever taken the exam and scored perfect 100's in all 8 categories. If I were to take the exam today or any day, I would not expect to get perfect scores in every category either.

So, one may hold up the PTG exam as being a model for ET and a standard to which one may aspire but the exam itself has tolerances that mean even if someone ever does get a perfect score in all 8 sections of the exam, the resultant tuning would still not be absolutely "perfect".

It is all just as hypothetical as BDB's nearly 20,000 posts are.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 11:44 PM

There is already a standard. It seems retarded to try to reinvent the wheel. Experienced tuners ALREADY know how to properly tune a piano. Just do it
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/25/13 11:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Quote:
It can exist, but this does not prove that it does exist. Every single recording posted here of M3/6's, including your own which I took from your PTG educational video, were not completely progressive.

Moreover the tolerances of the PTG tuning exam are such that it is possible to score 100% without having progressive M3/M6.

Kees


Kees, two things. That is the ET via Marpurg and from viewing Jason Kanter's graph, you would not expect perfect progressions, especially in the M6's. The main reason that video does not have better progressions than it does is that I forgot to execute the very last step: reconcile D#4 with the G#3 and A#3 below it.

It remains true, however that if the ET via Marpurg is perfectly executed, it will "pass" the PTG tuning exam. Several people I know of have done that. I am not allowed to talk about anyone's actual scores by name unless I have permission to do so but I do know of at least one person who passed the temperament portion of the exam with a perfect 100.

If I were to guess at what Jeff's temperament would have scored, it might be a 98 (only one "error" scored). But that is hypothetical because a Walter Console does not meet exam standards and there was no "Master Tuning" to compare it to. Nevertheless, a slight error such as is heard would probably score an electronic point.

The criterion for whether a scored point can be aurally verified is: Can the note which has a scored point be improved by either sharpening it or flattening it. If any aural checks (including CM3 checks) say that it can be, then the scored point is confirmed.

Let's all remember this: The tuning exam was set up so that only about 50% of tuners can pass it. After some years in use, the exam standards were tightened by adding multipliers to the pitch, temperament, midrange, unisons and stability portions of the exam. Today, it still remains true that only about half of first time attempts at the exam actually pass it.

This means that you don't have to be able to be perfect. No one has ever taken the exam and scored perfect 100's in all 8 categories. If I were to take the exam today or any day, I would not expect to get perfect scores in every category either.

So, one may hold up the PTG exam as being a model for ET and a standard to which one may aspire but the exam itself has tolerances that mean even if someone ever does get a perfect score in all 8 sections of the exam, the resultant tuning would still not be absolutely "perfect".

It is all just as hypothetical as BDB's nearly 20,000 posts are.

All very true. Question remains if it is humanly possible to tune (aurally or with an ETD) fully progressive M3/6's or not, irrespective of the PTG exam standards.

It is a somewhat theoretical issue, at least to me, as I prefer an unequal temperament for the music I like anyways. But for ET aficionados it would be nice to know. After all theory and practice should agree in theory, and preferably also in practice.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 12:01 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!

I can't download that file, just play it, so I can't analyze it.

Kees

OK, I figured out a way to get the audio off that URL you provided. Here are the results:


M3

C#3F 5.3
DF# 6.0
D#G 6.5
EG# 6.6
FA 6.9
F#A# 6.7
GB 7.3
G#C 8.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.7
C#F 10.8
DF# 11.6
D#G 11.6
EG# 9.2
F4A 10.9

M6

C#3A# 6.9
DB 7.0
D#C 6.4
EC# 7.0
FD 8.3
F#D# 8.3
GE 8.6
G#F 8.9
AF# 11.1
A#G 10.2
BG# 9.0
C4A 11.7

m3

C#3E 7.6
DF 7.6
D#F# 9.6
EG 9.5
FG# 10.7
F#A 12.3
GA# 12.7
G#B 11.5
AC 12.5
A#C# 14.1
BD 14.4
CD# 13.9
C#E 16.4
DF 18.2
D#F# 17.7
EG 20.8
FG# 23.5

Kees
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
M3

C#3F 5.3
DF# 6.0
D#G 6.5
EG# 6.6
FA 6.9
F#A# 6.7
GB 7.3
G#C 8.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.7
C#F 10.8
DF# 11.6
D#G 11.6
EG# 9.2
F4A 10.9

Kees

A rapid perusal of this leads me to believe there must be some really bad octaves.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 01:42 AM

Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
M3

C#3F 5.3
DF# 6.0
D#G 6.5
EG# 6.6
FA 6.9
F#A# 6.7
GB 7.3
G#C 8.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.7
C#F 10.8
DF# 11.6
D#G 11.6
EG# 9.2
F4A 10.9

Kees

A rapid perusal of this leads me to believe there must be some really bad octaves.

You seem to be correct. Here's a mixdown of the two EG# M3's an octave apart:
http://persianney.com/misc/container2.html

Kees
Posted by: Emmery

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 02:12 AM

DoelKees, may I ask.....how are you arriving at 1 decimal place analasis of beat rates?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 02:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!


Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 07:53 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees

..... Question remains if it is humanly possible to tune (aurally or with an ETD) fully progressive M3/6's or not, irrespective of the PTG exam standards.

It is a somewhat theoretical issue, at least to me, as I prefer an unequal temperament for the music I like anyways. But for ET aficionados it would be nice to know. After all theory and practice should agree in theory, and preferably also in practice.

Kees


Kees:

You are doing a great service to us all with your analyses. THANK YOU.

Everyone involved with this Topic is probably getting something a little different out of it. I am getting a number of different new perspectives.

One I want to mention is how amazing it is to me that some tuners do not believe that most scaling breaks makes it impossible to have consistent octaves and fifths, and have progressive M3s. Maybe it depends the discernment of RBI progression that the tuner has...

Another that has been confirmed in my mind is that even if it is possible to tune trully progressive M3s & M6s, it isn't practical. Progressive CM3s, with exceptions, yes. Progressive M3s and M6s, no.

But what is the limiting factor? Discernment? Hammer technique? Piano physics? Mental, emotional, physical fatigue? Probably any or all of these in any given tuning session.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 07:59 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

But what is the limiting factor? Discernment? Hammer technique? Piano physics? Mental, emotional, physical fatigue? Probably any or all of these in any given tuning session.


String leveling, hammer mating, false strings, crown/strike point shape, etc...
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 08:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark Davis
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner

But what is the limiting factor? Discernment? Hammer technique? Piano physics? Mental, emotional, physical fatigue? Probably any or all of these in any given tuning session.


String leveling, hammer mating, false strings, crown/strike point shape, etc...


I have to admit that when notes sound brighter, I tend to percieve the beatrate to be faster. I have to be careful.
Posted by: Mark Davis

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 08:19 AM

Jeff, one thing that I know that you have often brought out here on PW is, the real world of piano tuning for the "Trench piano tuner" on the "Brute piano.

Though there is a standard that may be executed with fairly good precision on a high end piano, or on the PTG exam piano, this is not real world scenario for many of us.

So we need to view the standard in the light of differing circumstances, quality of piano and the over all condition of the piano in question.

Then have the standard in view, tune the piano as best as we can, and move on.

As you and others have said so often, there are other things to do apart from tuning on our customers pianos (if they will allow us).
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
M3

C#3F 5.3
DF# 6.0
D#G 6.5
EG# 6.6
FA 6.9
F#A# 6.7
GB 7.3
G#C 8.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.7
C#F 10.8
DF# 11.6
D#G 11.6
EG# 9.2
F4A 10.9

Kees

A rapid perusal of this leads me to believe there must be some really bad octaves.

You seem to be correct. Here's a mixdown of the two EG# M3's an octave apart:
http://persianney.com/misc/container2.html

Kees

Those are so far off that it makes me suspicious of the recording.

Others should have noticed the problem.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 11:45 AM

Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: BDB
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
M3

C#3F 5.3
DF# 6.0
D#G 6.5
EG# 6.6
FA 6.9
F#A# 6.7
GB 7.3
G#C 8.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.7
C#F 10.8
DF# 11.6
D#G 11.6
EG# 9.2
F4A 10.9

Kees

A rapid perusal of this leads me to believe there must be some really bad octaves.

You seem to be correct. Here's a mixdown of the two EG# M3's an octave apart:
http://persianney.com/misc/container2.html

Kees

Those are so far off that it makes me suspicious of the recording.

Others should have noticed the problem.


BDB:

Could you mention what you noticed? For evaulating octaves from beatrates I compared the m3s to M6s for the 6:3 octave. Were you looking at the M3s and octave apart for variations? I think it is interesting that, once again, the beatrates of the M3s less than double per octave.

Anyway, I don't think it is the recording. G#4 was recorded three different times as part of different intervals. Each time it shows to be low in pitch.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 12:01 PM

Yes, the beat rates should be very close to double per octave.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: BDB

Those are so far off that it makes me suspicious of the recording.
Others should have noticed the problem.

What do you suspect of the recording? I'm not aware of any recording technique that changes frequency, except perhaps Edison's old cylinders. Or perhaps Phil was cycling while recording.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 03:00 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

Yes, if you (or anyone else) would be so kind to record progressive M3/6 in the temperament range I would be grateful. I will believe it when I see it, and I think I'm not the only one.

Thanks,
Kees

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso


Hi Kees, I think you (and those you are hosting in your mind) may well start a new Topic, kind of "I will believe it when I see it", so that here you will make less noise for those who have already seen "it".



Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Hi Kees
[...off topic stuff cut...]
Hi Alfredo.

Kees


Hi dear,

Yes, cut stuff and play digital if you like, but... how about starting a new Topic where you can analyze ad libitum and keep together all the material you get?
.

I'm probably wasting my time by responding, but since we have been considering progressive M3/6 as a possible standard for ET, don't you think determining if this standard is practical by examining if anyone can actually tune to this level of accuracy is on-topic in this thread?

Kees


Hi All.

Hi Kees,

You wrote: ..."I'm probably wasting my time by responding, but since we have been considering progressive M3/6 as a possible standard for ET, don't you think determining if this standard is practical by examining if anyone can actually tune to this level of accuracy is on-topic in this thread?"...

Well, my answer is yes and no. IMO "...examining if anyone can actually tune to that level of accuracy.." (here) may be misleading, due to the premises and perhaps the method.

As a survey or an inquiry, let's imagine two possibilities:

p1- Nobody here is able to provide progressive M3/6;

p2- Some do, some don't.

To make it short, (IMO) in both cases we would remain with a handful of flies, firstly because p1- would not include all tuners on earth, secondly because we do not happen to be able to share a practice that is (at once) adherent to a theoretical model, therefore I do/should not expect "theory (12 root of two) and practice" to agree.

And it sounds like you/we are talking about a "standard" that today cannot represent our actual tunings, in that it refers only to one octave (or little more) and leaves behind SBI's and larger intervals, like 10ths, 12ths, 15ths and 17ths. In this sense, the progressive M3/6 proposal appears to be anachronistic, and p2- meaningless.

On the other hand, I perfectly understand that you would like to "see" the so called ET(?) under those evidencies and circumstances, and I would like to make a point:

M3/6 in the temperament octave can be progressive (in my experience), but this - beyond what I wrote above - is the type of thing that perhaps most aural tuners (one way or another) would consider as being "academic"(?). If this is true, you might be asking for something in the wrong place. Hope this explains why I was talking about noise.

Please note, I do believe that your analysis can be very significant, in fact once we manage to elaborate on a reliable and practicable model, I think such a tool will make a big difference.

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 04:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!


Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards


I tune from a ladder of 3rds, C#3F3A3C#4F4A4, placing the 4ths and 5ths between each octave, F#3G#3A#3C4D4E4 then filling in D#, B and G from what's there. I refine each placement using the 3rds progression, and check with 6ths and m3rds.

That attempt obviously isn't very good, BDB is right about the octaves being bad - the initial ladder of 3rds is wrong, so there's no hope for that temperament! I did some corrections at the end of the tuning so I don't think I left that for a customer smile

I'll do another recording on Thursday. The link can now be downloaded if you want to.

What's the prize for the first pristine ET recording? Maybe we should turn it into something physical and give it to the BIPM in Paris! Or is ET an American Imperial standard?
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 04:57 PM

I keep checking other intervals as I tune octaves. That tends to make everything self-correcting.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!


Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards


I tune from a ladder of 3rds, C#3F3A3C#4F4A4, placing the 4ths and 5ths between each octave, F#3G#3A#3C4D4E4 then filling in D#, B and G from what's there. I refine each placement using the 3rds progression, and check with 6ths and m3rds.

That attempt obviously isn't very good, BDB is right about the octaves being bad - the initial ladder of 3rds is wrong, so there's no hope for that temperament! I did some corrections at the end of the tuning so I don't think I left that for a customer smile

I'll do another recording on Thursday. The link can now be downloaded if you want to.

What's the prize for the first pristine ET recording? Maybe we should turn it into something physical and give it to the BIPM in Paris! Or is ET an American Imperial standard?



Thank you, I was under the impression your 4th are more consistent than the rest. 5 the obviously are not, which is a trouble musically speaking.

I d suggest you use 5th and 4th to verify your first octave.

I do not like so much how it sound with the usual ladder on 3ds now I experimented Chas. It surprised me somehow..

Best regards.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 05:54 PM

Kees:

Here is another if you are willing. smile

https://app.box.com/s/wlpvbnui0zlkqyti8n0m

This is a victorian Ludwig upright that has been restrung. The sound isn't so great because it was recorded from the next room. My dog had to get into the act, too. Break is A#2-B2. Temperment is a D3-A4 P12. First is the M3s, then M6s and then the M6-M17 test.

I don't think I got it. My stability wasn't quite there, I believe. I am going to go stack BBs and clamp them in a vise to relax, now. wink

I was remembering that if a P4 and P5 have a common note on top or bottom and they beat at the same speed, it is about a 1/2 cent error. That is twice as much allowed to ensure chromatic M3s and M6s. Just thought I would mention this in case someone thinks that SBIs aren't important.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 06:52 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Kees:

Here is another if you are willing. smile

https://app.box.com/s/wlpvbnui0zlkqyti8n0m


I was remembering that if a P4 and P5 have a common note on top or bottom and they beat at the same speed, it is about a 1/2 cent error. That is twice as much allowed to ensure chromatic M3s and M6s. Just thought I would mention this in case someone thinks that SBIs aren't important.


Nice set of beats !


WHat strikes me is that tuners make so many efforts to obtain those progressive FBI, I wonder if the slow ones are not juste left aside because they try so hard, and forget how important they are.

Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!


Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards


I tune from a ladder of 3rds, C#3F3A3C#4F4A4, placing the 4ths and 5ths between each octave, F#3G#3A#3C4D4E4 then filling in D#, B and G from what's there. I refine each placement using the 3rds progression, and check with 6ths and m3rds.

That attempt obviously isn't very good, BDB is right about the octaves being bad - the initial ladder of 3rds is wrong, so there's no hope for that temperament! I did some corrections at the end of the tuning so I don't think I left that for a customer smile

I'll do another recording on Thursday. The link can now be downloaded if you want to.

What's the prize for the first pristine ET recording? Maybe we should turn it into something physical and give it to the BIPM in Paris! Or is ET an American Imperial standard?



With the F A C# F sequence I learned , much 4th are tuned, little 5ths. That was the sense of my question.

The ladder of M3 have little or no influence on the amount of consonance obtained, that is what I discovered on the late.
(consonant intervals octaves, 12ths, 5ths etc)
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 07:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: Phil D
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: Phil D
This thread is getting really interesting!

I recorded this, with a strip mute in. I was happy with the progression at the time, until I listened back to the recording. I know I can do better, but I'm emboldened to post it now smile

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/piano-tuning-1920s-chappell

ugh... those 5ths are really uneven!


Hi, thanks for participating.

Is the 4th your "preferred" or "most used" interval when building the temperament ?

Or did you try to get to the M3 by any mean and backtracking ?


Regards


I tune from a ladder of 3rds, C#3F3A3C#4F4A4, placing the 4ths and 5ths between each octave, F#3G#3A#3C4D4E4 then filling in D#, B and G from what's there. I refine each placement using the 3rds progression, and check with 6ths and m3rds.

That attempt obviously isn't very good, BDB is right about the octaves being bad - the initial ladder of 3rds is wrong, so there's no hope for that temperament! I did some corrections at the end of the tuning so I don't think I left that for a customer smile

I'll do another recording on Thursday. The link can now be downloaded if you want to.

What's the prize for the first pristine ET recording? Maybe we should turn it into something physical and give it to the BIPM in Paris! Or is ET an American Imperial standard?



With the F A C# F sequence I learned , much 4th are tuned, little 5ths. That was the sense of my question.

The ladder of M3 have little or no influence on the amount of consonance obtained, that is what I discovered on the late.
(consonant intervals octaves, 12ths, 5ths etc)


The thirds don't make a difference to the slow beating intervals, that's right. The idea of the sequence is to have three octaves set within which to place the fourths and fifths. I definitely need to concentrate on getting them more even.

How would I use 4ths and 5ths to verify the octaves? I usually use the M3M10 vs m3M6 test.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 07:52 PM

Yes that is what I did also.
By focusing on how 2 5ths and 2 4ths take their place in the first octave you are beginning with good slow beating intervals .

I now use a 5th that is slower in the bottom than the one up.
Traditionally that is the opposite the high 5th is more active than the low one. (as active as the 4th with common note, as said Upright)
I also listen directly to the octave without checking as I did, and the consistency is as good (the first octave is probably a little smaller despite the beginning of a roll at 2:1.)

That is a little different of "stretch", to me stretch is when the focus is on high partials with less attention to the strength at 2:1 , the octave can easily became a little inconsistent musically speaking then (even if a similar size is used chromatically).
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 08:53 PM

Can you be more precise, using note names to describe the exact intervals you are talking about? As usual, I think I get the gist of what you are trying to tell me, but it's impossible to be sure because you're so vague with your terminology.

eg. for A3A4, the A3D4 fourth should have slightly more of a beat than the A3E4 fifth, whilst at the same time the D4A4 fifth should have slightly less of a beat than the E4A4 fifth. This doesn't really help though. But I remember what you are describing from the CHAS instructions - D4A4 should be a tiny bit purer than A3E4, whilst A3D4 should beat a tiny bit faster than E4A4.

This is way off topic, especially introducing something from CHAS. I do apologise, I'm sure alfredo will jump all over this!
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 08:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Kees:

Here is another if you are willing. smile

https://app.box.com/s/wlpvbnui0zlkqyti8n0m


I was remembering that if a P4 and P5 have a common note on top or bottom and they beat at the same speed, it is about a 1/2 cent error. That is twice as much allowed to ensure chromatic M3s and M6s. Just thought I would mention this in case someone thinks that SBIs aren't important.


Nice set of beats !


WHat strikes me is that tuners make so many efforts to obtain those progressive FBI, I wonder if the slow ones are not juste left aside because they try so hard, and forget how important they are.



Thank you, but the jury is still out on how progressive they are.

The difference in cents between an RBI beating as it should and beating as fast as the next one chromatically is about 1 cent. But the difference between an SBI beating as it should and as fast as the next one higher is only about 1/7 cent. This is because the SBIs are 7 times as just as the RBIs (2 cents vs. 14 cents.) Contiguous SBIs have about a 1/2 cent difference.

Related to this is when a 4th and a 5th have a common top or bottom note. There should be a difference in the beatrates. If not, there is about a 1/2 cent error. And maybe the piano will not cooperate in being tuned this fine, but it can give an indication about what is going on with the RBIs.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Kees:

Here is another if you are willing. smile

https://app.box.com/s/wlpvbnui0zlkqyti8n0m

This is a victorian Ludwig upright that has been restrung. The sound isn't so great because it was recorded from the next room. My dog had to get into the act, too. Break is A#2-B2. Temperment is a D3-A4 P12. First is the M3s, then M6s and then the M6-M17 test.

I don't think I got it. My stability wasn't quite there, I believe. I am going to go stack BBs and clamp them in a vise to relax, now. wink

I was remembering that if a P4 and P5 have a common note on top or bottom and they beat at the same speed, it is about a 1/2 cent error. That is twice as much allowed to ensure chromatic M3s and M6s. Just thought I would mention this in case someone thinks that SBIs aren't important.


M6 3.4
M17 3.6

M3

D3F# 5.7
D#G 5.4
EG# 6.9
FA 6.7
F#A# 8.1
GB 9.3
G#C 9.0
AC# 8.6
A#D 9.5
BD# 9.1
CE 10.6
C#F 11.9
DF# 10.4
D#G 10.4
EG# ?
F4A woof

M6

D3B 7.8
D#C 7.3
EC# 7.8
FD 7.8
F#D# 9.2
GE 10.3
G#F 10.4
AF# ?
A#G 9.2
BG# 10.8
C4A 12.3

For some intervals the beats are very faint, while for others they are crystal clear, even when your dog joins in, see example below (G#F-AF#). Maybe it is possible to tune them progressively on a high quality concert grand.


Kees
PS Note how precise your dog is on pitch!
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/26/13 10:39 PM

I don't know where this thread has been going lately but I just got an e-mail tonight after a very long day taking care of all the demand for piano service right before Thanksgiving. Last week, I had a young man who lives in a town about 40 miles away come to the house in his neighborhood where I was working. The owner of the house and piano was gracious enough to allow the young man named Seth to observe me tuning.

Seth had purchased the cheap correspondence course we all know about but whose name will not be mentioned for obvious reasons. It is the one that still provides a cheap tuning hammer, a C Fork and a 4ths & 5ths sequence for temperament but no RBI checks. Nobody but nobody who ever reads that material can ever produce anything near to what might pass for ET! I had been a victim of it myself, so I know how it goes.

I had seen so many people try to take the tuning exam and come up with such wacky results that 10 years ago, I decided to try to do something about it. It had to start with the CM3's, no question in my mind about that! What I wrote was not directed at people who had actually learned to tune an acceptable temperament using 4ths & 5ths, mind you, it was directed at people who had tried repeatedly and failed badly.

In 2006, Jim Coleman, Sr. had seen what I had written and recommended me as the tuning tutor at the PTG convention. I took on as many students as I could fit in, more than were scheduled and even during some night sessions. For most of the students, the CM3's were a new concept.

After the initial CM3's, one can find the next note to be tuned by remembering the phrase, "Up a 3rd, up a 3rd, down a 5th". I know there are some people who like to use 4ths. The sequence I advocate, however provides at least one check at each new note tuned and many more quickly become available.

When a problem does arise, it is not a matter of "backing up" through the sequence but going back to previously tuned notes and adjusting the tempering until the problem at hand is resolved. Simply "backing up" may only create more cumulative error.

So, anyway, I got this note from Seth tonight and here is what he said:

Quote:
Mr. Bremmer, I had almost given up on aural tuning and am amazed at how well this system works for me. Every time I set the temperament with my strobe tuner, further tweaking was always necessary and I felt like a slave to the machine. Furthermore, I once thought it may be impossible for me to take the PTG exam as counting beats seemed confusing and my results always discordant. Though I am still a humble layman, I have gained a new confidence that eventually I will master this in order to join the guild. Thank you for your insight and thank you for letting me audit your skill the other day.
Happy thanksgiving to you sir.

Seth B...


Seth apparently took it to heart what I told him which was not to count beats but to compare them. There is a big difference! The piano itself will indeed tell you when you have it right. Many beginners say they can't "hear" beats but I have never found one for whom that was actually true. They can hear them as well as any experienced tuner. They just need to have the right information about what to do with them.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 07:38 AM

Thanks, Kees:

OK, I now know that I am not capable of tuning chromatic M3s and M6s. Even correcting B3, it is still not quite there. B3 must have crept up. I remember checking the FD/GB inside outside test.

But I notice with correcting B3 the CM3s are progressive and the inferred cm3s are also progressive. By inferred cm3s I mean the M6s a m3 apart would be progressive. G4 is a little low, too. I see this as partly a stability and partly a discernment issue, not a sequence problem. I think I can reliably discern RBI beatrates two, but not one semitone apart.

So how accurate IS Pal's (Paladin) pitch? Someone will wonder so I will mention he is 3/4 beagle 1/4 blue tick, red and white with ticking, 12 years old, still hunts like a pup, and then pays for it that night being stiff and sore.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 07:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
I don't know where this thread has been going lately but I just got an e-mail tonight after a very long day taking care of all the demand for piano service right before Thanksgiving. Last week, .....



Gosh, I hope this Topic doesn't go down the anecdote trail. I think we could get a pretty good answer to the question of beatrate discernment and tuning accuracy with more audio samples.

I think the relationship between the various intervals will be part of this, but no one sequence has claim to using these better than another, as long as they all are used.

It always has bothered me, Bill, that you are such an adherent to CM3s and then dismiss the M6/M3 outside/inside test. I doubt that you use or teach the use of all available tests.
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 08:32 AM

Quote:
It always has bothered me, Bill, that you are such an adherent to CM3s and then dismiss the M6/M3 outside/inside test. I doubt that you use or teach the use of all available tests.


I don't dismiss the value of the inside 3rd/outside 6th test at all. After each of the students I taught in 2006, Jim Coleman, Sr. would come in to test the temperament and that was the first test he used and often found no errors at all or a slight one in some cases. The same error could be confirmed in any number of other ways: CM3's of course, chromatic M3's or m3's, a 4th too pure and a corresponding wobbly 5th or vice-versa, etc.

You cannot use the inside 3rd/outside 6th test until you have some inside 3rds and outside 6ths to test! It is therefore most valuable as a final check rather than one which can be used early on or to check progress while constructing the temperament.

If you construct a temperament using only a 4ths & 5ths sequence, how many notes do you have to tune until you finally have an inside 3rd and outside 6th to listen to? Suppose that test confirmed apparent equality but both intervals were either too fast or too slow to fit the rest of the scheme. Then, what did it prove? Suppose it confirms inequality. Then which notes to you move to correct it?

As for anecdotal evidence, if one or two people took the time to write to me and tell me how well the material I had taught them worked for them while no others ever did or all the rest said it didn't work for them so they tried something else and had better success, that would be anecdotal.

If on the other hand, I get such immediate and unsolicited feedback from so many people, often those who just had found my material on my website and took the time and effort to write to me to tell me that they had finally found a method that made sense and actually worked, it appears to me to be a definite trend.

Many such people have gone on to take and pass the PTG tuning exam. There has never been anyone who told me that my material didn't work for them but they found the solution in a book that was written 100 years ago that had all the information they needed. If that happened, it certainly would be anecdotal.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 10:07 AM

anecdote (plural anecdotes)

1. A short account of an incident, often humorous.
2. An account which supports an argument, but which is not supported by scientific or statistical analysis.
3. A previously untold secret account of an incident.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 10:16 AM

Bill:

This is a quote from a post you made:

"I also never depended on the "inside M3, outside M6" test because theoretically, these are not truly equal beating but only quasi equal beating."

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1482971/My%20tuning%20exam%20experience.html
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 10:31 AM

Jeff, I may have missed something, but, "never depended" and "don't dismiss" are very different in meaning, and not at all mutually exclusive.

I'm not trying to fan flames, here. In fact, I'm hoping for... gentle answers that turn away wrath. smile

--Andy
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 10:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
Can you be more precise, using note names to describe the exact intervals you are talking about? As usual, I think I get the gist of what you are trying to tell me, but it's impossible to be sure because you're so vague with your terminology.

eg. for A3A4, the A3D4 fourth should have slightly more of a beat than the A3E4 fifth, whilst at the same time the D4A4 fifth should have slightly less of a beat than the E4A4 fifth. This doesn't really help though. But I remember what you are describing from the CHAS instructions - D4A4 should be a tiny bit purer than A3E4, whilst A3D4 should beat a tiny bit faster than E4A4.

This is way off topic, especially introducing something from CHAS. I do apologise, I'm sure alfredo will jump all over this!


Yes, :-) I do not think this is the right place to talk about sequences, methods and/or checks.

Please, Phil, refer to the "...Pre-par-a(s)tory..." thread, there I can write more. Here I will correct one passage only:

When you say..."...whilst A3D4 should beat a tiny bit faster than E4A4...", it is the other way round, A3-D4 beats slower (close to 1bps)* than E4-A4 (close to 3.5bps)*. This is fundamental, as well as the relation between the first five intervals, i.e. two 5ths (overlapped), two 4ths and the A3-A4 octave.

* = tuning mid-strings.

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 02:13 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
So how accurate IS Pal's (Paladin) pitch? Someone will wonder so I will mention he is 3/4 beagle 1/4 blue tick, red and white with ticking, 12 years old, still hunts like a pup, and then pays for it that night being stiff and sore.

I'll be happy to analyze more recordings of your dog. Perhaps dog assisted tuning is the way to ultimate perfection. After all compared to a dog's hearing we are practically deaf.

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 02:38 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
So how accurate IS Pal's (Paladin) pitch? Someone will wonder so I will mention he is 3/4 beagle 1/4 blue tick, red and white with ticking, 12 years old, still hunts like a pup, and then pays for it that night being stiff and sore.

I'll be happy to analyze more recordings of your dog. Perhaps dog assisted tuning is the way to ultimate perfection. After all compared to a dog's hearing we are practically deaf.

Kees


I have always heard fainter noises than my dog. But that is amplitude, not frequency... But what he understands best is musical emotion. He knows when I figure out how and what emotion to put into a piece. THEN he starts singing along. And when I tell him that is enough, he quiets down.

Well, they train dogs to use their sense of smell. Why not their hearing?
Posted by: Bill Bremmer RPT

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 02:54 PM

Well Jeff besides the fact that that the inside 3rd outside 6th test is technically quasi equal beating, the same four pairs of intervals beat equally (or apparently so) in the EBVT III. So, I guess that make it a "standard" temperament if that is so important. The same four pairs of intervals could beat equally in Reverse Well too. So, no, I don't depend on that test because it would only be redundant to other tests performed before it.

You did not answer my question: When do you use it? How many notes do you have to speculate upon the right amount of tempering before you even have one pair of intervals to listen to? Even if they are equal beating, how do you know they are not too fast or too slow at that point with respect to how the whole temperament should work out? When I get the G3-B3 M3 and the F3-D4 M6 tuned in the EBVT, those pairs are equal beating. If I tuned all of those intervals too fast they might still be equal beating. So of what value is that test in constructing a temperament? I never saw any at all.

How many times does it take for people to write to me and tell me that the material I wrote has helped them before it becomes "scientific"? How many times have you seen anyone who is learning piano tuning say that they found all the information they needed to know in the Braide-White book and went on to pass the PTG tuning exam with what they learned from that book alone?
Posted by: Emmery

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer RPT
Well Jeff besides the fact that that the inside 3rd outside 6th test is technically quasi equal beating, the same four pairs of intervals beat equally (or apparently so) in the EBVT III. So, I guess that make it a "standard" temperament if that is so important. The same four pairs of intervals could beat equally in Reverse Well too. So, no, I don't depend on that test because it would only be redundant to other tests performed before it.

You did not answer my question: When do you use it? How many notes do you have to speculate upon the right amount of tempering before you even have one pair of intervals to listen to? Even if they are equal beating, how do you know they are not too fast or too slow at that point with respect to how the whole temperament should work out? When I get the G3-B3 M3 and the F3-D4 M6 tuned in the EBVT, those pairs are equal beating. If I tuned all of those intervals too fast they might still be equal beating. So of what value is that test in constructing a temperament? I never saw any at all.

How many times does it take for people to write to me and tell me that the material I wrote has helped them before it becomes "scientific"? How many times have you seen anyone who is learning piano tuning say that they found all the information they needed to know in the Braide-White book and went on to pass the PTG tuning exam with what they learned from that book alone?


Bill, could you please elaborate on what you eactly mean by the terms, "quasi" and "apparantly" when reffering to how intervals beat. I was not aware that beating intervals could have another beat rate in an different dimension outside of this one we are hearing them in. Is it possible that you meant to state that its not necessarily important to the quality of the temperament if they are a little off the theoretical ideals, meaning there are more important intervals your looking at instead?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
So how accurate IS Pal's (Paladin) pitch? Someone will wonder so I will mention he is 3/4 beagle 1/4 blue tick, red and white with ticking, 12 years old, still hunts like a pup, and then pays for it that night being stiff and sore.

I'll be happy to analyze more recordings of your dog. Perhaps dog assisted tuning is the way to ultimate perfection. After all compared to a dog's hearing we are practically deaf.

Kees


I have always heard fainter noises than my dog. But that is amplitude, not frequency... But what he understands best is musical emotion. He knows when I figure out how and what emotion to put into a piece. THEN he starts singing along. And when I tell him that is enough, he quiets down.

Well, they train dogs to use their sense of smell. Why not their hearing?


If dogs had their sense of smell really trained, they would take showers more often ; )

Pfeww, that Braid White man was really the bad guy, I picture him with a hidden tuning lever hidden in his boot, ready to give you a kick with it wink

Sorry for the OT, it is just to keep the manifold pressure positive...
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 06:51 PM

Sorry, Bill, I thought you were asking a rhetorical question.

If you were asking earnest questions, I would answer but in another Topic. Presuming that I speculate does not belong in an earnest question.

To borrow a term from the V.P. your claim that the inside outside test works for UT is malarkey.
Posted by: Gary Fowler

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/27/13 11:53 PM

A Standard exists. Embrace it. Love it
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
A Standard exists.

Where, as an object or in writing?
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Gary Fowler
A Standard exists. Embrace it. Love it


Do you mean the ET... M39? laugh

Hi Ian, what are you doing so early.. :-)
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:40 AM

Alfredo, I am writing to the French, but that is another story and not about ET!

Did you know the standard metre was once held in Paris as the distance between two marks on an alloy of platinum and iridium?

Paraphrasing (a note about the history of the metre), none of the standards changed the temperament, but merely allowed it to be duplicated more precisely.

When it comes to temperament, maybe there is an advantage in moving the marks a bit?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:41 AM

E.T. (TM) reissued year xxx. All rights reserved.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 06:56 AM

Could we define the ET standard as each M6 audibly beating the same as the M3 two semitones higher? Wouldn't all the M3s and M6s then also be progressive?
Posted by: prout

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 10:10 AM

In the context of this discussion, a 'standard' means a 'model in comparative evaluations' (OED). Since each piano exhibits a unique inharmonicity, and even if you ignore that the inharmonicity varies slightly due to the tension change as the pitch of a note changes, the only 'model' that can be used 'in comparative evaluations' is that unique piano. The true aural tuner will find the 'standard' temperament for that unique piano.
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 11:30 AM

Yes that's right, Prout. As I understand it, the standard for the PTG tuning exam is a particular piano tuned by experts.

But the International Standards Organisation would look for something of more general applicability. They say a standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.

I have no doubt it would be possible to write such a document but whether everyone would agree with its contents is quite another matter.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 11:54 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Could we define the ET standard as each M6 audibly beating the same as the M3 two semitones higher? Wouldn't all the M3s and M6s then also be progressive?

Objections: It is a subjective definition ("audibly beating the same"). iM3-oM6 are not exactly equal beating, it's like defining pi as 22/7.

I like the original definition better: progressive M3/6. The fact that nobody can tune it does not discredit the definition IMO.

Kees
Posted by: prout

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 01:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Yes that's right, Prout. As I understand it, the standard for the PTG tuning exam is a particular piano tuned by experts.

But the International Standards Organisation would look for something of more general applicability. They say a standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.

I have no doubt it would be possible to write such a document but whether everyone would agree with its contents is quite another matter.


Good point, and gets to the heart of the matter here. All standards require an accepted measurement that includes an accepted error tolerance. The metre is precisely defined using time as the measurement vehicle, and the accuracy of the measurement of time limits the accuracy of the length of the metre.
If everyone would accept a given tolerance for error in a tuning, then a standard would exist.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 01:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Yes that's right, Prout. As I understand it, the standard for the PTG tuning exam is a particular piano tuned by experts.

But the International Standards Organisation would look for something of more general applicability. They say a standard is a document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose.

I have no doubt it would be possible to write such a document but whether everyone would agree with its contents is quite another matter.


Hello Yann, about the meter definition, I have seen a documentary, on how difficult it was to define the exact length of one meter.

It took not months, but years since 1792 to 1796 for 2 geometer to measure the exact distance required to compute the original "metre etalon" one should measure from 2 French towns, Dunkerke to Rodez, the other from Barcelona, in Spain , to Rodez. Where they where supposed to meet.

Imagine the 2 men measuring parcel after parcel, taking notes, to get the distance of 9.5 degrees of an arc situated between those 2 towns. (that are at sea level)

Of course there was war between France an Spain at that time, so a man taking measurements was easily mistaken for a spy...

Quite a journey :

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


Then, finally , ET : http://www.deezer.com/track/12492219


Enjoy !

Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:09 PM

I am not certain what standard one would use to define the pitch number of a note on a piano. I do not think that it can be defined to any arbitrary accuracy. One can probably tune equal temperament on a piano to within the accuracy that the pitch can be defined, and no other temperament, nor just intonation, can do any better than that on a piano.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 02:27 PM

I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance.

Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story.

I understand that was included in the OT.

As there is a different ET for each pianon I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener.

A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 07:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance.

Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story.

I understand that was included in the OT.

As there is a different ET for each pianon I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener.

A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower.


Ciao Isaac,

You wrote:

..."I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance."...

Do you mean... ET = progressive M3/6?

..."Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story."...

Yes, it is a different story, (mind you) both for "digital organs" and pianos. In both cases, we cannot have SBI's that double their beat-frequency every other octave. So, ET may well be defined (I would like to know what you mean), but the model is not 12 root of two.

..."I understand that was included in the OT."...

Me too.

..."As there is a different ET for each piano I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener."...

Hmmm... Here it gets difficult, 'cos I would go back to the first question, what is ET? But if you needed a formula for infinite "acustical" points... I would have one :-)

..."A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower."..

Yes, perhaps that is true, although I find it difficult to say. Anyway, I do not tune by listening only to pitch, as I used to do at first; I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Cordialmente,

Alfredo
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 08:04 PM

On the topic of using nearly equal beating ET test to define ET:
Besides the M3M6 test there is also a m3M3 test: C3Eb = F3A etc.
Doesn't seem to be popular, maybe IH messes this up too much in practice?

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/28/13 11:50 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Are you proposing that as the standard for ET? It sounds a bit vague.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 12:06 AM

I still think Jeff's original standard of progressive M3/6's is the best.

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to tune progressive M3/6's just shows that tuning ET is indeed very difficult. So difficult that nobody can do it, even with an ETD! Still the examples posted are all close enough for practical purposes.

Kees
Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 02:43 AM

Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?
Posted by: Chris Leslie

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 03:28 AM

Ian, according to my logic, which may be in error, it is possible to have poor ET with progressive M3rds OR M6ths, but good ET with progressive M3rds AND M6ths
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 05:09 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

Fast beating intervals are the result of the division of each new octave, to me, if I am looking for a basic definition (without any particular musical meaning)


Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 05:39 AM

Originally Posted By: Chris Leslie
Ian, according to my logic, which may be in error, it is possible to have poor ET with progressive M3rds OR M6ths, but good ET with progressive M3rds AND M6ths

Chris, Thank you for that distinction. Going back to what Bill wrote, although not the point I had in mind, he says:

Originally Posted By: Bill Bremmer
In the end, all 4ths & 5ths need to sound very much a like, none too pure, none "beating", all M3's and M6's progressive and all CM3's also having the proper but small, slower/faster relationship. When you have all of that, you have what would be an indisputable ET. It can exist on any piano, regardless of scale.

Isaac mentions other SBIs and there are octaves to consider too.

Coming back to my question, would one hope to find that all intervals are progressive, or should I say evenly progressive, in a concert tuning (to the standard rxd mentioned early on in this thread)? I mean within practical limits, of course.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 07:40 AM

All:

I don't think it is possible to have progressive M3s and M6s and not have apparently equal beating M3/M6 tests. And if the M3/M6 beats are apparently equal then the M3s and M6s will be progressive.

The word equal does have to be qualified whether we are talking about equal temperment or equal beating. I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

There are a couple of problems with substituting the m3 for the M6 in the inside outside test. First, it is only valid if the octave is about 6:3. That is the only time that the m3 and M6 beatrates are interchangeable. Second, since the partial match is higher (6:5 vs 5:3) they are fainter and more difficult to hear. Third, again because the partial match is higher, any anomaly in the string's iH will change the beatrate more as in the case of wound strings.

The one advantage is when the M3/M6 test is not available in the temperment sequence. I have tried using it in such circumstances, but there are usually other tests available by that time.

Yeah, it's available and useful but not popular.
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
I still think Jeff's original standard of progressive M3/6's is the best.

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to tune progressive M3/6's just shows that tuning ET is indeed very difficult. So difficult that nobody can do it, even with an ETD! Still the examples posted are all close enough for practical purposes.

Kees


Musically Significant Intervals. Hmmm.... Another Topic?
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 08:13 AM

All:

When you think about "NIST traceable standards", the idea is to have something more accurate than what you can calibrate. So I agree with Kees. Since progressive M3s and M6s is easily definable yet apparently unatainable, it makes it a good standard.

Now the question is how unprogressive can they be and still be considered ET and not UT? The demonstrated tolerance seems to be +/- 3 semitones. (F-A might beat the same as G#-C but not A-C#). Or perhaps there would be a weighted average sort of thing. Like not more than 2 RBIs 3 semitones out of progression.

I would hate this to become what the PTG exam seems to be: a graded curve. It would be like "relative morality". But I don't know at what point an ET becomes a UT. The idea of Musically Significant Intervals comes up again...
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 10:09 AM

Another recording. I think I got a lot closer... definitely need to work on getting those fifths more even though!

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/yamaha-c110a-tuning
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 11:40 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees
Posted by: UnrightTooner

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 11:47 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees


Would "approximately equal beating" be OK, then?

But really, the M3/M6 test is redundant to progressive M3s and M6s. Like saying fence posts are 4ft apart and every other one is 8ft apart.

Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: UnrightTooner
I agree with Kees' objection to the term "audibly beating the same". It was the best I could come up with at the time. "Apparently equal beating" is a better term.

I don't understand why that is better "Apparently equal beating" is subjective. Apparent to whom?

As a preemptive strike: I don't know what "virtually equal" means either.

"Approximately equal to such and such tolerance" is honest terminology IMO.

Kees


Would "approximately equal beating" be OK, then?

But really, the M3/M6 test is redundant to progressive M3s and M6s. Like saying fence posts are 4ft apart and every other one is 8ft apart.

I agree. Before leaving the subject of the M3/M6 test let me mention that many unequal temperaments, ebvt3 specifically, also have M3/M6 tests but instead of being a whole tone apart at different intervals (e.g., semitone, m3) depending where you are in the scale.

Kees
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 12:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees
Posted by: prout

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 01:52 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?


The OP asks about a tuning standard, not a piano tuning standard, though that is likely what he meant. It is rare for large groups of pianos to be played together. Orchestras, however, do this regularly. Defining a tuning standard based on some progression of M3/M6 intervals is not likely to help the bassoonist play "in tune". Does the OP hope that some particular temperament scheme will be selected as the universal standard for all performing groups where a bassoonist can play an ascending scale in any key and know that it will be in tune with the cellist?
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/29/13 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
Another recording. I think I got a lot closer... definitely need to work on getting those fifths more even though!

https://soundcloud.com/phil-dickson-1/yamaha-c110a-tuning

Here you go. There are a few instances where I can neither hear not see any beats.

M3

C#3F 5.1
DF# 5.5
D#G 7.0 (beats very faint)
EG# 6.5
FA 6.6
F#A# 7.2
GB 7.6
G#C 8.8
AC# 9.0
A#D 9.4
BD# 8.4
CE 10.5 (beats very faint)
C#F 11.2
DF# 12.0
D#G 12.1
EG# 13.8
F4A 14.1

M6

C#3A# (can see no beats)
DB 7.2
D#C 7.5
EC# 7.6
FD 7.7
F#D# 8.2
GE 8.6
G#F 9.5
AF# 10.4
A#G 10.5
BG# 10.3
C4A (can see no beats)

Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 01:28 AM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees


Individual notes are reinforced by the amount of partials they trigger up and down.
I suggested slow beating intervals are more effectively doing so. (then FBI also but they are higher in the partial range and are less active for that part of the job...
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 10:17 AM

I suppose the recording and concert industries are the main keepers of what standard there is. We are flexible, though, given the right circumstances.
I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 10:53 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd
I suppose the recording and concert industries are the main keepers of what standard there is. We are flexible, though, given the right circumstances.
I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?


Yes, as the ear is not accustomed, the effect can turn to be too addictive and common musical sense lost at some point.

(Better keep it, be it because the vast majority of listeners are accustomed to hear more evenness than "out of tuness")

I for one just believe that the tuning on piano does not need so much "acoustically pure" intervals to go to the point any "out of tuness" is really noticed.

Now if it is the goal is to play an old instrument with a less even tone, more variations are probably allowed.

While looking for that old recording of Nelson Freire at 13 , I find that one at 20, in 1969 (let you do the math guys, if of some interest wink
F#major Chopin barcarolle (dedicated to Mr Stockhausen - was not the same you think about guys wink )

I would call that "French style" of tuning. Hear that enough to recognize some characteristics. Unfortunately even after 30 years tuning I cannot link that to any particular method or temperament.
(The Steinways where different at that era, also..)



P.S food for though : the F3 F4 ladder of M3 is long time used in France, and was known as "Pleyel temperament", while I cannot put a date on it unfortunately.
That probably accounted for some evenness in tuning.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 11:11 AM

I like that one, for instance :



But in that other recording, the piano is just out of tune, to me :


While the Bach Busoni sound nice, many other pieces are just sounding uncomfortable to me.
Posted by: BDB

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 11:19 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
I like that one, for instance :



But in that other recording, the piano is just out of tune, to me :


While the Bach Busoni sound nice, many other pieces are just sounding uncomfortable to me.


The second recording has a lot of flutter.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 11:25 AM

Yes , that may influence pitches indeed.

But unison also are terrible , I am talking justness, nowadays.

Not much "advantage" the pianist can use while playing, I mean... considering this he does very well.

the 4th F- C is extremly large while C3 C4 is large too (could it be a C3 C4 based temperament ?) I guess so, with a pure FC 5ths somewhere in the scale (reported to the basses it is clearly noticed)
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 04:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: DoelKees

M3-6 are musically significant, and if they are audibly non progressive key equivalence is destroyed.

SBI's like 5ths and 12ths are musically irrelevant; they are already purer than musicians can play them on flexible pitch instruments. They are perfect for all practical purposes.



I just dont get that .

slow intervals are playing a role in the congruence and clarity of each individual note.

I just dont get that smile

What is the "congruence" and/or "clarity" of a note? Those terms mean nothing to me. Can you give a specific example, say a chord, to clarify your concept?

Kees


Individual notes are reinforced by the amount of partials they trigger up and down.
I suggested slow beating intervals are more effectively doing so. (then FBI also but they are higher in the partial range and are less active for that part of the job...

Got the concept. Are you trying to maximize or minimize that reinforcing effect? As a player of mainly contrapuntal music I would like to minimize it. How does that prevent you from having progressive M3/6's?


Kees
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 06:13 PM

I'd like to give a precise answer to that.

I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths.

I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently.

I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale.

BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)

the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano.

I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic.

It mixes with the 3:2 beat and the 5th begin to be more interesting .

I feel the permanent raising of speed in fast beating intervals easily induce a sense of permanent tension, it is not so easy to have at the same time quietness and that raising tension that push the ear toward the treble. One need excellent instruments.

Pianists seem to like the way the enhanced unison make the piano sing. This is so strong it hide the inbalances that would strike the ear if the tone was more dull.

It is mostly based on the 12- 15 balance and CHAS style shape, while the imbalances in the tempering make chord differences more present, avoid too much predictability. That allow to go a little farther in direction of acoustically pure, without being obliged to attain it.
I hardly can obtain a mean to control that, at the moment. WHat I know is that I can avoid intervals sounding too badly, without making too much corrections., Just tuning where I feel the pitch is right and listening to the answer from the rest of the piano.
This is then absolutely linked to any flaws in my listening.

Musical behavior is not granted by an absolutely even progression of FBI, I mean, use an ETD with fixed curve, and you have something that sound tuned, but does not sound so much right.

The "answer" from the notes of the partial scale is so strong it allows to have good double and triple octave and even more, without the need to check them. I trained to listen to the strength of the coupling when I tune a new string, this does not give absolute justness, but it is abig help.

There is a certain amount of progressiveness, its curve shape is not too steep nor too straight





Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 06:24 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Olek
I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance.

Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story.

I understand that was included in the OT.

As there is a different ET for each pianon I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener.

A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower.


Ciao Isaac,

You wrote:

..."I guess ET is yet defined, you find it on digital organs for instance."...

Do you mean... ET = progressive M3/6?

..."Now the way it is implemented on pianos is a different story."...

Yes, it is a different story, (mind you) both for "digital organs" and pianos. In both cases, we cannot have SBI's that double their beat-frequency every other octave. So, ET may well be defined (I would like to know what you mean), but the model is not 12 root of two.

..."I understand that was included in the OT."...

Me too.

..."As there is a different ET for each piano I cannot see what the standard would be. even a formula should address acoustical points, as the pitch of a single note is not clearly defined when in the ear of the listener."...

Hmmm... Here it gets difficult, 'cos I would go back to the first question, what is ET? But if you needed a formula for infinite "acustical" points... I would have one :-)

..."A youngster will hear a different pitch than an adult , and possibly after some age we hear the pitch lower."..

Yes, perhaps that is true, although I find it difficult to say. Anyway, I do not tune by listening only to pitch, as I used to do at first; I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Cordialmente,

Alfredo


Originally Posted By: DoelKees
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
I use beats as a walking stick and I tune a form, you decide how to call it, a beat-form? A geometric-form? In any case, it is pitch_and_beats in one, the same (progressive?) form... no matter the piano.

Are you proposing that as the standard for ET? It sounds a bit vague.

Kees


Hi Kees,

There I was replying to Isaac. As a standard, I would propose Chas as the (theoretical) "optimum" and non-beating 12ths as the ante-room (does that word exist?), say something that we can check easly, provided we get non-beating 12ths by establishing progressive RBI's and SBI's. In order to do that, you need to invert 4ths and fifhts.

Hi Jeff,

I do not have time to quote your post, where you were mentioning "breaks"; on top of having to "see" a whole_form, I would like you to check one more "scaling" factor, namely how you set the picth in relation to the pin and the string's tension. In my experience, the partials scaling (leave the piano scaling aside) may variate significantly... to the point that pin/string setting might be the problem, more than the piano scaling itself. You would focus on progressive 6ths, but a 6th is... a 4th plus a M3.

Hi Isaac,

I could only listen to the first recording you posted today, French tuning or whatever... that piano could sound better :-)

Hi Phil,

I only looked at Kees' numbers, it seems you have done a very good job. Do you have discretional access to a piano, in London?

Regards, a.c.
.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Olek
I'd like to give a precise answer to that.

I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths.

I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently.

I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale.

BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)

the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano.

I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic.

It mixes with the 3:2 beat and the 5th begin to be more interesting .

I feel the permanent raising of speed in fast beating intervals easily induce a sense of permanent tension, it is not so easy to have at the same time quietness and that raising tension that push the ear toward the treble. One need excellent instruments.

Pianists seem to like the way the enhanced unison make the piano sing. This is so strong it hide the inbalances that would strike the ear if the tone was more dull.

It is mostly based on the 12- 15 balance and CHAS style shape, while the imbalances in the tempering make chord differences more present, avoid too much predictability. That allow to go a little farther in direction of acoustically pure, without being obliged to attain it.
I hardly can obtain a mean to control that, at the moment. WHat I know is that I can avoid intervals sounding too badly, without making too much corrections., Just tuning where I feel the pitch is right and listening to the answer from the rest of the piano.
This is then absolutely linked to any flaws in my listening.

Musical behavior is not granted by an absolutely even progression of FBI, I mean, use an ETD with fixed curve, and you have something that sound tuned, but does not sound so much right.

The "answer" from the notes of the partial scale is so strong it allows to have good double and triple octave and even more, without the need to check them. I trained to listen to the strength of the coupling when I tune a new string, this does not give absolute justness, but it is abig help.

There is a certain amount of progressiveness, its curve shape is not too steep nor too straight



Ciao Isaac,

I too feel like wanting to understand your priorities.

..."I use the amount of consonance at the individual note level to decide where my octave or unison is good but it works also for 5 ths."...

Do you mean that you go along your musical ear and sense of "in tune"? That you let your ear "drive" you, more than considering beats?

..."I do not believe it prevent me of reducing the progressiveness of FBI, unless I do not strive for that as an absolute priority , as I did recently."...

Do you mean that your ear calls for progressive FBI's? Or..., for you progressive FBI's are not the "absolute priority"?

..."I am more interested to keep some congruence in the 5ths, meaning if I have a slight difference of warmness for one, I like to find the same along the scale."...

I like how you describe intervals, I think I am more simplistic... If I consider a fifth on its own, say A3-E4, it could sound beatless or have a (narrow) 0.5 bps and my ear may still accept that; though with other notes it would become a problem. What makes a fifth warmer for you, does it mean purer or narrower?

..."BTW I do not see why it would be a trouble to contrapuntal music to have the individual notes enhanced by others. It gives the tone more presence, does not seem to lower the musicality, on the contrary it allow the pitch perception to happen sooner in the tone (crispness of the attack), so it may help to shape the voices. (on the acoustical part of things)"...

Well, I do not know what Kees meant.

..."the 5ths can be tempered well and have some slight difference in venue, seem to me, that may be interesting, particularly if it is also something that is within the natural spectra of the piano."...

Yes, I think I get what you mean, but "that" particular 5th will also have to work as any other interval, so... what is (where do you find) the leeway?

..."I believe that the sort of phantom note that we hear in the 5 th upper note , due to the difference between the 2 fundamental pitches, is a part of what I hear as the 5th characteristic."...

That may well be, and I look forward to experiencing that.

Hmmm... I have to postpone the second half.

Have a nice Sunday,

Alfredo
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 11/30/13 07:43 PM

Thanks Isaac for that explanation.

Am I correct in assuming voicing is also part of your process of what you call "congruence"? In other words, do you consider "tuning" and "voicing" not as completely distinct processes?

I have always wondered why proponents of UT do not also advocate unequal voicing. For example the baroque flute has very unequal voicing as accidentals are handled with forked fingerings, hence difference keys have their own character, independently of the tuning. The modern flute equalized all that with all those keys.

Anyways, with such an artistic approach to tuning as you seem to advocate, having a standard for tuning would be like having a standard for playing Bach.

Kees
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/01/13 02:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?


Hi Ian, good question.

Perhaps the first distinction is to be made between the 12-Tones ET and one ET amongst modern ET models.

I would discard the well known 12TET (12 root of two) in that it is of no use at all, not really (or not only) because of inharmonicity, but because (in theory) it doubles all beat-rates every other octave, and because in practice a zero-beating octave does not exist.

Modern ET's include "pure fifths" (proposed by Serge Cordier), which encompasses 7 tones, "pure 12ths" (proposed by Bernhard Stopper), which includes 19 tones, and Chas which encompasses 24 tones.

We might decide to go for one of these ET's, in which case - for obvious reasons - we would need to add the respective theoretical constraints.

Chas represents an exception: when it comes to aiming at the target into practice, it suggests the tuning of a sharper curve, which ever curve we may need in order to counter-balance (anticipate?) hysteresis.

Other requirements might be needed, in consideration of specific interval beat-curves, I do not know if you were also asking about that.

Best wishes,

Alfredo





Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/01/13 04:46 PM


I too have a question: in English, is it more correct if I say "modern" ET's or "contemporary" ET's?

Cheers, a.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 06:28 AM

Originally Posted By: rxd

I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?


That is funny as that can be understood differently :

Not enough change from usual ET
or
The "out of tuneless" of ET missed to the pianist.

The pure 5th of the temperament create an "in tune" perception that was not expected.

The piano, used to its usual tuning, did go back toward it..

Which was ?

I had a look, it is difficult to tune that temperament aurally, yet on a harpsichord, then on a piano it may loose a lot of character (may be also thecomment from the pianist, if he is harpsichord player for instance)

Pianos does not seem to be well suited for strong UT's




Posted by: Withindale

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 10:16 AM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?


Modern ET's include "pure fifths" (proposed by Serge Cordier), which encompasses 7 tones, "pure 12ths" (proposed by Bernhard Stopper), which includes 19 tones, and Chas which encompasses 24 tones.


Alfredo

If I were drafting a standard for ET today (which of course I am not), I'd be inclined to cover the range of possibilities you mention from 12-TET to Cordier.

Before allowing for inharmonicity, my calculations of octave stretch are 12-TET: 0 cents; Chas: 0.32 cents; Stopper, pure 12ths: 0.86; Cordier, pure 5ths: 2.32.

Franz Mohr, or was it the Steinway tuning guide, said all octaves are stretched a bit. One way and another, octave progression appears to be significant.

I'd say any such standard, that's to say a document setting things out, should include tests related to thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, octaves, tenths, twelfths, fifteenths, seventeenths and maybe others.

It might well have something to say about beat rate curves but there would have to be a precise definition (with examples for the various types of temperament). Does one exist?

I note that: Bill Bremmer said the higher the octave stretch the brighter the sound; Isaac thinks pure twelfths put an upper limit to stretch for the temperament octave, and prefers something closer to 2:1, possibly within a Chas framework; and that Jeff D say pure twelfths may sometimes be tempered to advantage.
Posted by: DoelKees

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 11:56 AM

Originally Posted By: Olek
Originally Posted By: rxd

I was talking with a colleague who understands UT's and had tuned a piano in Kirnberger lll for a modern piano concerto that specified Kirnberger lll. The pianists' only comment was that the piano didn't sound out of tune enough!!! After a good laugh, we discussed it more seriously. I wonder If this typifies the real underlying thinking of pianists in this matter?


That is funny as that can be understood differently :

Not enough change from usual ET
or
The "out of tuneless" of ET missed to the pianist.

The pure 5th of the temperament create an "in tune" perception that was not expected.

The piano, used to its usual tuning, did go back toward it..

Which was ?

I had a look, it is difficult to tune that temperament aurally, yet on a harpsichord, then on a piano it may loose a lot of character (may be also thecomment from the pianist, if he is harpsichord player for instance)

Pianos does not seem to be well suited for strong UT's





KBIII is the easiest WT to tune aurally.

Kees
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 12:14 PM

It sounds like we're at a loose definition of ET as a standard - beat rates should be progressive and octaves should sound pure. Everything else follows from those two criteria. Having 5ths, or 12ths, beatless (or using any other ratio) is just a way to define how pure the octaves are, and as we can't reach agreement on this question (it depends on too many variables), it shouldn't be defined in any standard.

I love the sweet smell of progress wink

edit: perhaps an addition: "Octaves should sound pure, whilst allowing as many of the larger intervals (double octaves, 12ths, 17ths, triple octaves) as possible to also sound pure."
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 12:22 PM

Originally Posted By: Withindale
Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Withindale
Trying to follow the argument so far, progressive M3/6's appear to be necessary for the attainment of ET but not sufficient. Bill cited examples of tunings with progressive M3/6's that were not ET.

Is it sufficient for ET that all intervals are progressive, or are further conditions necessary?


Modern ET's include "pure fifths" (proposed by Serge Cordier), which encompasses 7 tones, "pure 12ths" (proposed by Bernhard Stopper), which includes 19 tones, and Chas which encompasses 24 tones.


Alfredo

If I were drafting a standard for ET today (which of course I am not), I'd be inclined to cover the range of possibilities you mention from 12-TET to Cordier.

Before allowing for inharmonicity, my calculations of octave stretch are 12-TET: 0 cents; Chas: 0.32 cents; Stopper, pure 12ths: 0.86; Cordier, pure 5ths: 2.32.

Franz Mohr, or was it the Steinway tuning guide, said all octaves are stretched a bit. One way and another, octave progression appears to be significant.

I'd say any such standard, that's to say a document setting things out, should include tests related to thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, octaves, tenths, twelfths, fifteenths, seventeenths and maybe others.

It might well have something to say about beat rate curves but there would have to be a precise definition (with examples for the various types of temperament). Does one exist?

I note that: Bill Bremmer said the higher the octave stretch the brighter the sound; Isaac thinks pure twelfths put an upper limit to stretch for the temperament octave, and prefers something closer to 2:1, possibly within a Chas framework; and that Jeff D say pure twelfths may sometimes be tempered to advantage.


Ciao Ian,

You wrote: ..."If I were drafting a standard for ET today (which of course I am not), I'd be inclined to cover the range of possibilities you mention from 12-TET to Cordier."...

Hmmm... 12-TET does not work, because any scale ratio smaller than Chas would "deflate" the two-octave compass. On the other hand, scale ratios larger than Chas may well be considered (in practice), as mentioned in my previous post.

..."Before allowing for inharmonicity, my calculations of octave stretch are 12-TET: 0 cents; Chas: 0.32 cents; Stopper, pure 12ths: 0.86; Cordier, pure 5ths: 2.32."...

I see, :-) you do not waste time.. :-)

..."Franz Mohr, or was it the Steinway tuning guide, said all octaves are stretched a bit. One way and another, octave progression appears to be significant."...

That's for sure.

..."I'd say any such standard, that's to say a document setting things out, should include tests related to thirds, fourths, fifths, sixths, octaves, tenths, twelfths, fifteenths, seventeenths and maybe others."...

I agree. Let me ask: You say "tests", do you mean aural tests, or graphs, or...?

...It might well have something to say about beat rate curves but there would have to be a precise definition (with examples for the various types of temperament). Does one exist?..."...

Well, what I could do in my research report was comparing 12_root_of_two and Chas beat-curves, and I think you are right about definition and examples. I can define beat-curves, but right now it is no possible for me to work on "various types of temperament", as I have little spare time.

..."I note that: Bill Bremmer said the higher the octave stretch the brighter the sound;..."...

True, the more you pull a (any) string, the more it tends to shout, I think my quasi-wife would agree :-)

..."..Isaac thinks pure twelfths put an upper limit to stretch for the temperament octave, and prefers something closer to 2:1, possibly within a Chas framework;..."...

That's why Isaac is my favorite :-)

..."..and that Jeff D say pure twelfths may sometimes be tempered to advantage."

Yes, perhaps Jeff could work on beat-curves and "examples for the various types of temperament", Jeff was the first in PW to grasp the concept and was able to provide some very vivid graphs.
Posted by: Hakki

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 12:38 PM

Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?


First, I admit that I have read non of the replies and I am just replying to the original post above.

This is not a fundamental question that should be asked. Why?

Because, as of today, there is not a fundamental issue between these tuning temperaments.

Because, as of today, it is both unfair and not very meaningful to compare some scarce UT (lower that 0.1%) that belongs to past to ET (higher than 99.9%) that is in use today.

Because, ET is already THE universally accepted standard already.

Because, 99.9% of the population even do not know what an UT means.

Because 99.9% of the population is not aware of something ET vs. UT.

Because 99.9% of the population is not aware what ET means.
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Phil D
It sounds like we're at a loose definition of ET as a standard - beat rates should be progressive and octaves should sound pure. Everything else follows from those two criteria. Having 5ths, or 12ths, beatless (or using any other ratio) is just a way to define how pure the octaves are, and as we can't reach agreement on this question (it depends on too many variables), it shouldn't be defined in any standard.

I love the sweet smell of progress wink

edit: perhaps an addition: "Octaves should sound pure, whilst allowing as many of the larger intervals (double octaves, 12ths, 17ths, triple octaves) to also sound pure."


Hi Phil,

What do you mean by ..."..loose definition"? A translation (in Italian) of the term "loose" may mean too many different things.

You say .."...octaves should sound pure..", and one question is precisely there: octaves that "sound pure" may be on the narrow side or on the wide side of the octave leeway, before the octave sounds beating. And the point here is to see if and how we can share a standard, not a tale.

The two criteria you mention prove that the ET subject is pretty abstract, how to say... evanescent? And everything would follow that?

..."Having 5ths, or 12ths, beatless (or using any other ratio) is just a way to define how pure the octaves are, and as we can't reach agreement on this question (it depends on too many variables), it shouldn't be defined in any standard."... etc.. + edit...

Oh, perhaps now I get it, you are not being serious :-)
Posted by: alfredo capurso

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 03:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Hakki
Originally Posted By: OperaTenor
After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?


First, I admit that I have read non of the replies and I am just replying to the original post above.

This is not a fundamental question that should be asked. Why?

Because, as of today, there is not a fundamental issue between these tuning temperaments.

Because, as of today, it is both unfair and not very meaningful to compare some scarce UT (lower that 0.1%) that belongs to past to ET (higher than 99.9%) that is in use today.

Because, ET is already THE universally accepted standard already.

Because, 99.9% of the population even do not know what an UT means.

Because 99.9% of the population is not aware of something ET vs. UT.

Because 99.9% of the population is not aware what ET means.



Hi Hakki,

From your post I understand that you would adhere to present days and perhaps you like large numbers.

Ok, that may well be your preference, but one thing you state above says it all:

..."Because, ET is already THE universally accepted standard already."

In fact, all we can do with that "universally accepted" standard (for the time being) is only... write about it. Oh... can you tune it?

:-)
Posted by: Phil D

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 06:43 PM

Originally Posted By: alfredo capurso
Originally Posted By: Phil D
It sounds like we're at a loose definition of ET as a standard - beat rates should be progressive and octaves should sound pure. Everything else follows from those two criteria. Having 5ths, or 12ths, beatless (or using any other ratio) is just a way to define how pure the octaves are, and as we can't reach agreement on this question (it depends on too many variables), it shouldn't be defined in any standard.

I love the sweet smell of progress wink

edit: perhaps an addition: "Octaves should sound pure, whilst allowing as many of the larger intervals (double octaves, 12ths, 17ths, triple octaves) to also sound pure."


Hi Phil,

What do you mean by ..."..loose definition"? A translation (in Italian) of the term "loose" may mean too many different things.

You say .."...octaves should sound pure..", and one question is precisely there: octaves that "sound pure" may be on the narrow side or on the wide side of the octave leeway, before the octave sounds beating. And the point here is to see if and how we can share a standard, not a tale.

The two criteria you mention prove that the ET subject is pretty abstract, how to say... evanescent? And everything would follow that?

..."Having 5ths, or 12ths, beatless (or using any other ratio) is just a way to define how pure the octaves are, and as we can't reach agreement on this question (it depends on too many variables), it shouldn't be defined in any standard."... etc.. + edit...

Oh, perhaps now I get it, you are not being serious :-)



No, I'm certainly being serious.

A loose definition is an imprecise one. I don't think a precise definition is appropriate.

My addition, which you may not have noticed: Octaves should sound pure, whilst allowing as many of the larger intervals (double octaves, 12ths, 17ths, triple octaves) as possible to also sound pure."

Your CHAS definition allows many of the larger intervals to sound pure. Narrow octaves do not achieve this. Pure 12ths also allow many of the larger intervals to sound pure.

It's clearly evident in this thread that trying to set a precise definition on the width of any interval is not appropriate as a tuning standard that everyone can agree on. It is necessary to be imprecise to allow for the many different stylistic and artistic interpretations that individual tuners bring.

Can anyone think of a style of ET tuning that is not encompassed by this description?

All intervals should be progressive - the width of an interval should be between the width of the same intervals chromatically adjacent to it.
Octaves should sound pure, whilst allowing as many of the larger intervals (double octaves, 12ths, 17ths, triple octaves) as possible to also sound pure.
Posted by: Olek

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 06:53 PM

Originally Posted By: DoelKees
[
KBIII is the easiest WT to tune aurally.

Kees


Yes it seem, I confused with Kirnberger.
Posted by: Ed Foote

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/02/13 07:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Hakki


First, I admit that I have read non of the replies and I am just replying to the original post above.
Because, ET is already THE universally accepted standard already.


Greetings,
This is patently not true. Universal means everyone, and I, for one, have many customers that want nothing to do with ET. I know of many other techs that can say the same thing. One's desire to find that "universal truth" is scant reason to claim consensus, and there is no consensus on temperament, and there never has been.

The amount of harmonic variety available from a piano is a subject that that can be looked at as a continuum. The amount of variety can range from none ( ET) to unmusical. If we look closely enough, we find that there is never a completely equal division, but it is close enough so that the brain of the listener shuts down all the circuitry that is attuned to register the differences in physical harmony. Since it is scientifically proven that the emotional state of the listener can be affected by consonance and dissonance of intervals, whatever emotional response that could be heightened by variety is lost without it.

I tune all manner of temperaments, from compressed ET in the recording studio, to wildly stretched ET for modern concerti. There are Victorian shadings of ET that are preferred for the teaching studios, and full blown Young temperaments for songwriters here in Nashville. harpsichord mavens fluctuate between 1/4 C, Kirnberger, and Vallotti. The pre-college students' teachers have an easier time of listening all day when I can reduce the tempering in the easier keys used by young students. Steve Fairchild offered a "Piano Teachers' Delight" temperament about 36 years ago. It was almost a copy of a WT, and I know of several tuners around the country that have been tuning it their entire careers with success.

Then there is the temperament tuned by so many of the aural tuners I have observed. In this temperament, there is no order to the variety, just random width thirds scattered about the barely acceptable fifths and suspicious fourths. I would wager that 90% of the aural tuners I have seen in this business couldn't pass the current RPT test with what they normally offer their customers. And that test is an easy one to pass!

There are many ET's,(Chas. Stopper, etc) so even a "standard ET" is not going to be easily defined. However, ET's ability to remove a tonal center makes it flavorless and a "one size fits all, sorta" tuning. This makes it the most common, but it is NOT universal.
Regards,
Posted by: SMHaley

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/03/13 01:55 AM

And just as hotly debated would also be pitch level. Its not hard to forget that it wasn't all that long ago that ET @ A440 was "adopted" as a general guideline for keyboard instruments (primarily piano).

I think with the modern awareness of historic performance practice it has allowed one to reconsider the purpose of pitch and temperment. There is no such thing as one tuning method fits all. If anything it would suggest that the more well rounded tuner will stand a better chance of having the ability to be flexible.

A program of early keyboard works will most certainly benefit from a WT than vanilla ET, even if the instrument isn't totally authentic to the period. I believe that the informed audience with an equally informed ear need something of color in a performance beyond what can be had from exclusively using ET.

ET might be best left for the concert stage with instrumentalists playing works of the romantic period and later.
Posted by: rxd

Re: Should There Be A Standard? - 12/03/13 07:40 AM

Originally Posted By: SMHaley
And just as hotly debated would also be pitch level. Its not hard to forget that it wasn't all that long ago that ET @ A440 was "adopted" as a general guideline for keyboard instruments (pri