Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum My Piano in EBVT III

Because they would still have their period tuning.

Hello,

GP, thanks for sharing the recording of Bill's tuning.

Bill,

I think you did a good job, a tuning that all together can be enjoyable, and you may not need me to say that. Your feedbacks from your customers also do confirm the quality of your tunings, so it should not be this the point of any discussion.

Anyhow, the main point of yours seems to be: ET is colourless, all keys are equally wrong, pianists can enjoy UTs more and composers think of music in UT terms.

You may know, by now, why I cannot agree with you on many of your statements, mainly because I do not manage to follow the logics behind them, so I find them merely confusing.

By reading Peter Serkin's above:

..."In seventh-comma modified meantone
temperament, to which Tim Farley had tuned the pianos, all
the harmonic relationships become fully alive and meaningfully
colorful in a manner that, it seems, cannot be conveyed
in standard equal temperament."...

You see that Serkin himself writes "colorful in a manner that, it seems, cannot be conveyed in standard equal temperament.".

Modern ETs are not "standard" equal temperaments, but very performing variants. Today you could acknowledge this simple fact, and I wonder what you find difficult about the whole issue. Yet, you know that reverse well is the product of many attempts, if one ever wanted to tune 12th root of two ET, the 300 years old ET model.

You write:

..."There is the Chas method which I have never really been sure of just what it means,"...

This statement of yours again puzzles me. How can this happen? Since May 2009 you could well know about Chas Temperamental Theory and its new approach to beats and the sound whole. How can you not "be sure of just what it means"?

And many times you happen to talk about music in philological and historical terms, so I ask: could not you acknowledge ET's evolution and the basic difference between a method and a theory, before referring to actual equal tempering of the sound scale? Should not you try your best to witness these new ET theories and their practical effects? 

You write..."there is the Stopper tuning which as I understand it, creates an ET within not an octave but an octave and 5th which is tuned as beatless. Either of these has 5ths which are barely tempered but as a consequence, M3s, M6s, M10s and M17s which all beat faster and are more dissonant as a result. Some people like that sound, others do not."...

But you yourself wrote that you met Stopper and that you liked his tuning, the pipe-organ effect being included. This again confuses me more.

Then you write:...”What I discovered long ago, in the early 1980's before I ever started tuning any unequal temperaments was that equal beating double octaves and octaves and 5ths produced the most beautiful sound possible.”...

Do I read correctly? Does “equal beating double octaves and octaves and 5ths” produce “the most beautiful sound possible.”?

So I can only wonder more. But despite any kind of “barrier”, and with the idea that no temperament should be exclusive, I would still be happy if you, Bill, took part actively and professionally to this precise moment, exactly now Bill, when temperament's theory and tuning practice is being renewed.

Regards, a.c. 

This has been a lot of fun, although tuning for a "broadcast" quality recording is not easy!

Today I was able to get the piano up to where Bill left it when he finished it last Saturday, not an easy task by the way, he is VERY good! Part of the problem last week, was the fact that we pounded the pins down of the upper 2 treble sections the night before Bill arrived, and then did not record for 2 days. Those 2 sections seem to migrate to the flat side of the pitch even today. A fair amount of unisons seem to go out after every piece, especially the louder ones...so I tried to correct those before recording the next piece, I corrected most of them, but not all.

I must say right off the bat, I have NEVER heard my piano sound this beautiful. In the past, everything has been some form of ET...mind you, ET sounds very pleasant, and I have no argument with it....but when you hear this EBVT III, there is no comparison, ET sounds flat to me, not in pitch, but in it's ability to bring out different colors etc. EBVT III seems to bring out colors in the music I have never heard. The Rhapsody is just astounding in it's depth and scope of it's harmonies and the richness of the music comes through so well. The Debussy, magical. The modern pieces from the Movies are also beautiful.

What amazes me about this EBVT III, is that every type and style of music sounds great. As I said to Bill on Saturday, it "feels" right to my ear. Listen to "Il Postino"...the depth....the sweetness and beauty of the harmonies, which seem to envelope you...I could listen to this all day and never tire of it. Randy Potter heard it live on Saturday, and was impressed. I was so taken with the piano today after tuning it, I just kept recording ...LOL.....so here they are. Enjoy, and please feel free to comment, be it pos or neg.

I am glad to have met Bill, and to have had the opportunity to experience his tuning first hand, and to have been able to recreate and demonstrate his valuable work with my Mason & Hamlin RBB to everyone here at PW.....what a piano this is, especially now with the Isaac Hammers and Bass strings, (Roy, the hammers have not been voiced!) the Wapin bridge modification, the Ampico and LX playback systems, the new WN&Gross back-action, and now Bill Bremmer's EBVT III...wow! I don't think I will be changing the tuning for my piano for long time. 85+ year old pianos can still rock!!! Thanks Bill!


1. "Rhapsody in Blue" played by Matt Herskowitz, played on the LX in EBVT III, using Mark Fontana's Mid2Piano CD software. ( A slightly different interpretation than the previous recording) http://www.box.net/shared/18mtn6eq2d

2. "Il Postino" played on the LX in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/m9ca7ctxtg

As a comparison, here is the same "Il Postino" played in Equal Temperament from the RCT, OCT 5 stretch. http://www.box.net/shared/fav9kacmpv

3. Reflets dans L'eau in EBVT III, played by Leo Ornstein on the Ampico http://www.box.net/shared/pmvag7o200

4. A Tribute to Gershwin played on the LX-EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/7q0u5pmfon

5. "Out of Africa" on the LX-EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/y7hsemgiaa

6. "Somewhere in Time" on the LX-EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/6rua8m6hvb

7. "Age of Innocence played on the LX-EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/byr8pb545y

For comparison, here is the same piece in both the RCT OCT 5 tuning and the Stopper Tuning, which I posted back in Oct, 2009 here on PW.

Stopper (corrected for sound level) http://www.box.net/shared/s4huo9y1pm

RCT OCT 5 (corrected for sound level) http://www.box.net/shared/hagt0fk2ly

8. Rachmaninoff playing "Maiden's Wish" on the Ampico in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/i58daryc85

9. Very patriotic...:) Rachmaninoff playing "The Start Spangled Banner" on the Ampico in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/0n542k21ik

Well, that's if for now....I have so enjoyed this experience in hearing my piano in a completely different light. Thanks again to Bill for taking the time to come out and tune my piano, and it was a pleasure to meet Randy Potter as well.

Thanks GP for sharing a recording of the piece Age of innoncence, which you have also previously recorded with the OnlyPure software.

I do not want to comment about the tuning qualities, everybody has it´s preferences. I don´t have concerns with an out of tune effect in this piece as i had in the rhapsody in blue (which could also be caused by a partly gone tuning, which was the case as you mentioned already).

Anyway something must have been happened with the unisons between the two recordings.
I believe the hammers are voiced down to a level i don´t like, or maybe the assistance for unison tuning with the OnlyPure software did the difference for more opened unisons. I find the recording with the Stopper tuning more open and breathing in the unisons* as your own machine re-tuning with Bremmers EBVT figures. I am sure Bill could have tuned the unisons more open. Unfortunately they were already gone when you recorded with Bills original tuning.

*Although i found not all unisons were perfect either with the OnlyPure record, but probably just a lack of experience.

The gent doth protest too much, methinks.

BDB, yes, I suppose they may but however those tunings were effected would have been quite different from the way pianos were tuned. Tuning a temperament and octaves on a piano is quite a different experience from tuning fixed pitch percussion instruments, organ pipes, etc. You also have to consider that any such percussion instrument has much higher inharmonicity than a piano. It would be an apple and orange comparison.

I do assume that those instruments were tuned in ET (or at least attempted that way) but that is only an assumption. Grandpianoman has two of those player type instruments with the large metal disc (I can never remember what they are called). They produce a charming and beautiful sound. They are amazing in the fact that the sound itself is produced by a relatively small set of tines. They are naturally amplified by the wooden box. The tines are arranged in an even looking comb which could only reflect ET, otherwise, the lengths of the tines would appear uneven. I've never heard of any tuned percussion (other than Gamelon) instruments being tuned in anything other than ET but how exactly true they are to ET is another matter.

Alfredo, thank you for your comments. Frankly, quite some time ago I gave up on following your threads. I cannot understand the math and I find your English barely understandable and therefore difficult to read. I am sorry but to this day, I do not know what "CHAS" means. I do get the idea that you tune in ET and that you stretch the octaves in a particular way but that is about all I understand. The same goes for the Stopper tuning.

Whatever difference there may be between the way you stretch the octaves and the way Herr Stopper does seems to me to be quite small and virtually indistinguishable. Yes, I liked the way Stopper's tuning sounded; it makes the piano sound crisp and clear. From what I have heard of your tunings, I certainly find nothing objectionable. However, when I played two recent examples that were posted, a CHAS tuning and a "standard" tuning, I frankly could not tell the difference.

Both of you seem to feel that you have found the ultimate solution for tuning the piano. You want to prove somehow with math that it is valid and I have no argument with that but I personally cannot understand what the math I have seen tries to portray, so it is lost on me. In any case, the difference in the way ET sounds, stretched very little, to moderately, to the most it could be only seems to yield very subtle nuances of difference.

I must admit that the first time I heard Grandpianoman's comparison between two examples, one with RCT default stretch and the other in the Stopper tuning, I preferred the clarity I heard in the Stopper tuning. There was more of a difference than I expected to hear. So, there is something to be gained or lost with the amount of stretch applied, yes. There were some listeners who clearly preferred the RCT default stretch calling the sound "warmer" or "mellow".

Now, I did arrive at the conclusion about stretch in ET long ago as I have said. Stretching the temperament octave to a compromise between a 4:2 and a 6:3 octave, then causing an equal compromise between double octaves and octave and 5ths seemed to be ideal for me. Many people, technicians and pianists alike expressed voluntarily how beautiful the octaves I tuned sounded. As I had written to you long ago privately, I seemed to be able to turn the two problems in tuning, inharmonicity and the comma, against each other in a favorable way by using that approach. It reduced the "noise" inherent in tuning. It made the piano sound beautiful and clear.

It turns out that this is the way most of the best tuners tune today whether they arrive at those results the way I did or not. Most technicians, pianists and music educators still believe firmly in ET as the best and/or only way to tune the piano.

No matter what is done, piano tuning is ultimately a compromise. Stretching ET to the point where the tempering of the 5ths is apparently hidden is one compromise, yes and it does yield its advantages and disadvantages. People can become accustomed to that sound and they can become fixated on that one sound being the one and only acceptable sound.

Everyone already knows I have found another compromise. I am in the minority, yes. Most people are skeptical about it. Some people reject it outright, some without ever hearing it. That does not hinder me because I have enough people who are interested to continue. Condemning what I do with ridicule and mockery however only invites the same in return. I recall the admonition, "If you can't say something nice, it is better to say nothing at all".

Therefore, I am not really interested in debating, analyzing, confirming or refuting which amount of stretch applied to ET is the ultimate solution. I already have my own idea about that but since I don't tune in ET, it is a moot point for me. I use the same idea when tuning the EBVT III but of course, because the EBVT III has 5ths of varying sizes, the octaves also vary in size.

Thank you for posting these latest recordings, Grandpianoman. I enjoyed listening to them all. As I listen to the three versions of the Age of Innocence, I hear again the clarity of the Stopper tuning but also a kind of "tart" sound to all harmony. The RCT version does indeed sound warmer and softer but it lacks that sparkle that the Stopper tuning has. The EBVT III seems to provide both the clarity and warmth I desire to hear from the piano. Modulations provide the tension and subsequent release of it that is inherent in the music the way it was written.

What you have is truly unique in all the world. Who else has a 1925 Mason & Hamlin BB with both the original Ampico player system and the modern LX system? It would sound just fine in whichever version of ET might be tuned but you asked for what I do and you liked what I did, so that is what matters. What you expressed in your phone call last night is what many people have expressed upon the discovery of the well-tempered sound (not just this well-tempered sound): a new musical experience that ET simply cannot provide.

The more you correct and re-correct the tuning back to the specifications I provided, the more the piano will begin to accept it and remain stable that way for longer. Enjoy it!

Bernhard, the hammers on the M&H are VERY soft. There has been no voicing done as of yet. They are naturally that way. When the piano is played manually, you really have to play hard to get anything out of it. However, this is necessary because the player systems drive the piano very hard. The American preference for a softer sound than most of the rest of the world should also be considered. As Grandpianoman continues to use the piano, the hammers will surely need to be shaped and voiced.

I can say this about tuning that piano. It requires a lot of effort to attain a particular pitch for each string. It has relatively new strings and a new Wapin style bridge. Grandpianoman can tune beautiful unisons but at this point, the piano is quite resistant to retaining the precision we all would like to hear from it although things are progressing well. The pinblock is also new and the tuning pins very tight. I believe that as the piano gets better broken in and each string is corrected and re-corrected to the specifications GP has, it will become more accustomed to staying in a beautiful tuning for longer.

Certainly, a Yamaha, Kawai or any German made piano is far easier to tune precisely. The M&H also does not tune the way a Steinway does. It has its own uniqueness to it. Since GP does not tune for other people and he only wants to keep his own fine instrument in tune, I know that he will become used to how it behaves and he will be able to do better and better with it. Personally, I am enjoying very much the progress so far as I know GP is.

It just seems that exactly how true the percussion instruments are to ET is going to be how true everything was tuned to ET, at least by the best tuners of the day.

Bill:

Earlier in this thread I mentioned liking the EBVT I for some pieces, and you explained the difference between the first EBVT and third. Perhaps it is those pure 5ths that I miss in the third version.

You and Alfredo are actually in agreement about important things: Alfredo specifies that 12ths are slightly narrow in his CHas temperament. The exact pitches of 12th's in his tuning will of course differ from those of ET or EBVT, but you both prefer a slow beating on that interval and the octaves.

By the way, in your list of the off-sets that Serkin uses, you left out the G#\Ab. Is it left at 0?

(Are there recordings of Serkin using this temperament?)

If the tines where not even, then the notes would not be in chromatic order. The tines could be in a outrageous temperament and still be even looking.

Hi,

To add to Jeff's comments, the difference between ET and WT is a small fraction of each tone's frequency. The tines on an ET and WT instrument would differ by such small amounts that I would bet my bottom dollar (or South African Rand) that there would be no appreciable optical difference between the two.

Just think about it: a semitone (from one tine to the next) is 100 cents. A typical WT offset is what? Perhaps 2 cents, or 4 cents at most? Compare that to the 100 cents semitone - I don't think you'd spot the difference with your eye.

But fortunately, we have ears too. So it would indeed be interesting to examine fixed-tuning percussion instruments from earlier periods to gain insight to the tuning practices back then.

Back to topic.

Bill, I've listened to "The Age of Innocence" in all three tunings (Stopper, RCT and EBVT III). I still prefer RCT because in my ears, there are fewer extremes.

Example: at the climax of the piece, the B-flat maj. chord at 2:45 with Bb6 in the melody, as well as the B-flat maj.9 chord at 2:50-2:51 with C7 in the melody, both sound cleaner to me in the RCT tuning. That's my opinion, which I give freely, because I presume that this thread was started to solicit opinions (why else?) - even if they should happen to be pro-ET.

On the other hand, I can't find any places in the piece where the EBVT III sounds convincingly purer than the RCT. If you have any such specific examples, I'd appreciate your pointing them out to me.

And just for the record: I'm not ridiculing you, I'm not trying to make you change, I'm not trying to do anything to you. I'm giving an opinion. If however, you should want to read only pro-EBVT opinions, then please state this explicitly from the outset, and I'll go away quietly.

BTW It makes me listen to the some Gerswin recordings that are available on Youtube , and to me none of them are as extreme as EBVT. (they simply tone as ET to me).

On that one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U40xBSz6Dc&feature=related

The piano is a little low in high trevble vs the winds. (I traced it to the lights or the warmness of the audience) .

But the tuning is at best, (to please Bill !) a very mild Well (I can hear the C3 - , and then the G's that are MAY BE slightly less tempered, and it is may be only due to an enlarging of the C3 C4 octave in temperament).

But that does not lend to such unbalanced harmony than with the EBVT, and what may be more important, the intervals are lininig octaves, doubles etc, that gives more coherence in anycase, I suggest that the imbalance sensation I get from the EBVT is coming from there, as I believe I could listen to a no perfect ET and not feel bad.

On other recordings at piano solo this is always ET , to me.

Eventually may be they could be in some Well temperament, or have the same kind of slight difference in the last 5ths that I could see even n some good concert tunings sometime (that make a little change in some tonality if compared to a perfectly balanced ET, but often it was due to the sequence used by the tuner, and the need to have stretch soon, and the fact that he decide that it is more important to have good stretched octaves and nice unisons than to search for the perfect ET and spend 10 minutes more, he reconciles all in the stretch - a little like does Bill) That was the old way, most younger tuners goes for a more evened RBI progression from the start actually (and that is not always providing the most harmonious piano, as may be not all are striving for that).




By evidence a tuner who know how to have a piano that ring well can find how to make a perfectly balanced tuning be it with slow beating intervals or no (I recently recorded myself tuning with only 5 th 4 t h for the temperament, and octaves for the rest, and the RBI intervals are all absolutely progressive, it was only a matter to stay in the "resonant spot" all along the treble, I have done that with Chas, but was doing the same before with a more standard ratio (staying in the spectra resonance at all times) .

That I did not believe it was even possible a few months ago (making a 4-5th sequence and obtain a perfect progression of RBI's , but it is, in fact and I sea no reason 19520 tuners did not do so !

I can assure you that I generally trace any slight difference in harmony. I would not probably hear immediately a very light Well, but at some point there is an interval that tells me he tone differently.
I have been highly trained to that, of course I can be wrong sometime but depends of the quality of the sleep !



MArk "The RTC" does not mean something else than a tuning with smooth 3d partial curve in the medium and begin of the treble. (that provide some resonance yet, but does not suffice !)
That does not really describe a tuning, to me . Or are you saying something else ?


Regards

Here is "Maiden's wish" played by Rachmaninoff :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB6B_xpXMYw

That one tones just to me.

I listened to the new recordings. When comparing th 3 RCT, EBVT, and STOPPER, Ive find the EBVT more musically enjoyable, as for a recording. may be it is due to a differnt tone in unisons, better quality recording.
But more harmonic resonance in the mediums when listening to the RCT OT5 (The basses are not very nice on that one.
The Stopper I've find just, but somewhat dry.

On a real piano, I really like the 12ths that are "broken in".

I really cant get acquainted to it, always that unbalanced sensation at some moment , and lack of harmony.

By evidence each one believe he find THE good way to tune, but there are preferences that can be applied and that, depending of the situation.

Each tuning ask for a compromising.. To me the Chas lend to a very large one that raise the "reverberation like" behavior of the piano.

That is what I appreciated first with the VT100 the fact that partials are well evaluated, and then are lining well. large harmonies still maintain a resonant state without too much incoherence no prominence of some beats, more quietness.

Just me, probably !

Those tuning things make us very emotive and passionate.

Thanks for the sharing. I am happy you enjoy it.






.

I am not really saying anything with "RCT". I was just referring to the names that Grandpianoman has given his tunings/recordings:
Stopper only pure
RCT
EBVT III

I did not get it. sorry !

Bill, thank you for your reply. You'll find mine in another thread.

Regards, a.c.

Thanks for all of your comments. Kamin, when you say "unbalanced" to me, that is what occurs in reverse well. It means that wider or narrower M3s are in the wrong places with respect to the rules of Well Temperament. To you, it must mean anything but perfect ET. What I recognize from both of you is what I expect to hear from most piano technicians. You have become accustomed to a perfected ET and anything that deviates from it in the very slightest way sounds incorrect. I could choose to tune that way but I have made another decision.

Kamin, what you recognize from the vintage Gershwin recording (and what I also hear) are three things: Quasi ET, less than perfect unisons and an octave tuning method that is random. The octaves were most likely tuned one upon the other without listening to the effects of double and triple octaves nor the 5ths in between or any RBI checks. There are still technicians who tune that way today. In the old tuning books I have, it says not to stretch the octaves too much. Some people today still say that. I never hear a piano in any of the recordings from the early 20th Century or even those from the 60's or 70's that sound as good as they do today. None of them would fit the description of "broadcast quality" for today.

Yesterday, I worked for 12 1/2 hours with another technician to replace key frame and damper felts, bridle straps, file and align hammers on an old upright owned by a professional musician. So, I did not have any time at the computer, nor will I for the rest of today (tunings out of town and PTG meeting tonight). The customer was also a sound engineer and he made some CDs for me of GP's latest tunings. We listened to them as we worked on a good stereo system. They were very enjoyable.

Neither the technician who worked with me nor the musician whom we were working for made any such comments as have been written here. Only the music was enjoyed. The piano I worked on was tuned in the end as usual, in the EBVT III. The musician loved all of the improvements in tone and touch. His wife provided lunch and dinner. He understood all about the EBVT III, liked the concept and that is why he hired me. He played and played when the piano was finished, enjoying every moment. He paid the bill by check but also gave both me and the other technician a generous cash tip. As we left, the sound of the piano playing could be heard from outside.

So, it is this kind of feedback to what I do which I respond to, not what technicians on here may say. It happens every day and has happened every day since I first tuned the EBVT in 1992. If I did, in fact, receive the kind of feedback from the pianists for whom I work that I do from some technicians, I would certainly change what I do to satisfy them but the fact is, that I don't. Instead, I receive comments along the lines of what Peter Serkin wrote which cannot be ignored. Should I listen to what he says or should I listen to what other technicians say?

I take the position that I have always heard from Steinway: We respond to what the artists say, not what technicians say. It is not that technicians are necessarily wrong in their opinions. For example, I still firmly believe that the Model O Steinway scale should have been changed. But when I express what I feel is deficient about it, I only get strong rebuttals from pianists who say they like it the way it is.

I know there are people in my area who do not hire me to tune their pianos because of what they perceive (whether having heard it or not) and they make their decision to hire the technician they prefer. It would always be that way regardless of the reason they make their decision. I also know at least three technicians who come to mind immediately who make their living tuning pianos and who have their own loyal customers but who consistently tune in reverse well. Would I tune in reverse well so that maybe I could get those customers? No. Would I tune in ET sometimes as a guess that maybe this customer or that customer may like it better than the EBVT? No, I would not do that either.

I have a full clientele of people who want what I do the way I do it, so I give them what they want. I have a full day today of all fine grands, each of which needs to be maintained the way I do it, so I have to get going and do it. I know that GP likes what I did and I hope he will post more offerings soon.

I think the new recordings are a tremendous improvement and I enjoyed listening to the songs, so much so that I could start to analyze what I was hearing.

My observations are from a strictly only aural tuner who likes tuning with utmost precision in ET. I don't understand a lot of the math that is used to express the deviations from ET, and probably without the use of an electronic tuner would have a difficult time doing anything else.

The new recordings with the cleaned up unisons were very enjoyable. For me it was like listening to an orchestra that has good intonation. If it doesn't have really good precision, naturally someone who tunes pianos is going to be annoyed listening to it. The different instruments of the orchestra have to blend correctly to sound in tune with everyone else, and that is what this tuning reminded me of.

This type of tuning to me sounds 'less' like a piano since you do not hear as much of the beating. But this is what makes a piano unique, because this must occur in order to have the ability to have all the notes at your fingertips, unless you seek the modifications to ET which are being illustrated in this thread.

In complex chords, I think many pianists and tuners like the sounds that ET gives them, sort of a vibrato effect and lots of color. It seems as though there is less of this with the modified tuning, which may be desirable to some, just like the sound of an orchestra that combines many different instruments into one harmonius sound.

The new recordings make a tremendous difference. I think that part of what Kamen was responding to was the bad unisons and the few notes that went entirely off. He hadn't heard the recordings from several months ago. These very latest recordings after a second tuning really remind me of why I like the EBVT. Still a little more tension in some intervals than in ET, but this is great, warm sound:

http://www.box.net/shared/m9ca7ctxtg

Kamin--A completely different sound from the first recordings in this thread, yes? But, yes, very different from CHas. Different animals entirely, with different goals in the intended sound.

Greetings all,

I am not a tech, but I think by pounding the upper 2 treble sections as we did the night before Bill arrived, did not do the stability issue for the whole piano any favors. Even after Bill spent the better part of Sat, grooming the piano, it was somewhat out of sorts 2 days later when I recorded it. Even after I re-tuned it, it is now out again. Bill showed me a different hammer technique...before, I was slow pulling the hammer a bit sharp, then hitting the key while I nudged the hammer a bit to get the string to fall into place to make a clean unison. Bill suggested that I "impact" the hammer with a quick easy blow to the sharp side, which he explained as sending a slight shock wave through the whole length of the string, which hopefully will equalize the tension in the whole length of the string. I tried this on my tuning, and it seemed to work, but then after a few days of concerts every day,:) the tuning is not right again.

I think what is going on here is partly due to my not being able to do a really good stable tuning, yet, and the pounding of the 2 treble sections, which disturbed the tension in the whole piano, and the daily concerts.

My sonic observations so far....how to put it into words....I am getting a sound that is more "earthy". When the piano is fresh from my tuning it, it is so musical sounding, unlike anything I have heard before. More sonic observations later...I am going to have to tune it again. Hopefully, the more it's tuned this way, and with no more pounding of notes or changes to the piano, (Wapin), it will eventually settle.

Bill is correct, both player systems play the piano, depending on the piece, like a concert pianist doing a concert. It really pounds the notes. So I guess I can't beat myself over the head for the tuning not being so stable. One thing to mention...while Roy Peters is correct, the LX puts out very little heat if any, the Ampico motor on the other hand, does just the opposite. It's a large electric motor, and after being on for awhile, it's put's out heat. In addition to that, there is a vinyl cover over the whole belly of the piano, to cut the noise of the Ampico mechanism. This traps the heat from the motor and probably effects the soundboard a bit and the tuning to some degree. It certainly helps with the moisture issue up here in Oregon though.

Jake, I agree, especially on the Il Postino. Even in that though, there are treble unisons that are not right, and some of the treble has slipped flat, even so, the effect of the EBVT III is magical. That was recorded several pieces after the Herskowitz Rhapsody, which really pounded the notes at times. This "tension" you mention in some intervals...I think this is what I perceive as "earthy" sounding, and gives EBVT III a distinct sound from ET.

Nick, your explanation is right on the money.

Everyone has a different take on what a beautifully tuned piano should sound like. It's all so very subjective. I am glad there are people like Bill, Alfredo, Bernard etc, that are pushing the envelope of piano tuning so that we can have more of a 'sonic' palette to choose from! Now if Don Gilmore can perfect his self-tuning piano, I would be in 10th heaven, not 7th, 10th. Just think about it, at the push of a button, one could have either EBVT III, ET, Stopper, CHAS, etc etc etc.

This re-tuning I did of Bill's original tuning, I relied solely on the RCT for the whole tuning. Btw, my thanks to Dean Reyburn for emailing me the file with Bill's figures so I could load them into my RCT, and to Robert Scott for showing me how to input the EBVT III figures into my Iphone Tunelab, a very easy process btw. Both took my phone calls right away!

This time around, I am going to rely totally on the Iphone Tunelab. I had both ETD's going while I did the tuning, to see if they agreed, which they pretty much did, but I relied on the RCT as the final say. One thing I did notice between the RCT and Tunelab...the RCT was a bit quicker in showing me the correct tuning...this was pretty much only as I tuned octaves 6 and 7, the higher I went up the treble to the end, Tunelab took a bit longer to show the correct tuning.

Some explanation of my antique music boxes is in order. I played both my Reginaphone and Olympia music boxes (circa 1900-1907) for Bill. I showed him the musical combs and how a music box disc strikes 2 tines together for 1 pitch/note, this is called a "double-comb" music box. (They also made "single" comb boxes, with only 1 tine per note.) They did this to get more volume and a more complex sound. According to the experts, each note has 2 tines to it, tuned slightly different, but the same note....this effect when all are going, produces a unique sound. The way they tuned these tines, was by attaching lead weights of different weight, under each tine/note to sharpen or flat the note/tine. I had forgotten to mention that to Bill. So while there is a uniformity to the combs when looking at them from above, below where the leads are attached, it's different, although the lead still follows that the longer and heavier the lead, the lower the note, and vice versa for the higher notes. With this lead "voicing" so to speak, they were able to fine tune the tines/notes a lot better than by just making the tine larger or smaller.

More music to come....:) GP