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

I tuned a piano for a local musical a while ago and went to one of the performances. While the very small pit band warmed up I knew there would be trouble. The lead guitar was tuned so “sweet” I would call it greasy. And the bass guitar was played by someone with Absolute Pitch that by reputation tunes to suit his inner ear and not the rest of the world. It was not obvious when they weren’t playing the same notes, but when they were it sure did sound wrong, but probably only to me.

Afterword I got to thinking what I could have done different. Should I have researched how the lead guitar and bass guitar tuned and tried to match it somehow and then charge quadruple to pay for the research, the custom tuning and the retuning to ET? Or maybe tune EBVT III that really doesn’t ever sound right to me anyway so that I cannot quite put my finger on what is wrong? Like what a drywaller might do with a ceiling that is out of whack. Put enough texture on it to keep the eye from noticing the flaws.

Well, I just don’t think that way. I tune ET and make no excuses.

Mark,

What I proposed was a study on the Piano Forum of pianists listening and evaluating, not a thread in which I would participate at all. Thanks for your comment that you didn't find much that was objectionable but your very comment shows that you come from the side of the issue where anything but ET would be considered objectionable and therefore wrong. If the temperament were unequal enough that you would notice something, the only thing that you would notice would be something disturbing to your sensibilities and therefore, it would be wrong.

It is OK with me if some technicians don't like the EBVT III but what I find is that the opinion is always a pre-determined one. I really think that in most cases, the people that have scrutinized what they have heard so carefully (with the idea already in mind that it will be unacceptable), find descriptive words that go far beyond what is really there.

Let me draw a comparison: A person that passes the temperament and midrange portions of the PTG tuning exam both with a score of 100 is rare. That means that most aural tuning of ET has some sort of deviation in it. A person can still pass that exam with a total of 15 cents worth of error (deviation)in the temperament and even more in the midrange. Such people who do are usually professional piano technicians. Among those who only tune aurally but who barely pass that exam are still able to please their customers. Otherwise, they could not remain in business.

Indeed, there are some who tune aurally, please their customers but even after repeated attempts, do not pass that exam. The EBVT III contains a total 0f 16.8 cents worth of deviation from ET. When plus versus minus deviation is considered, there is only 12.8. I submit that if one of these people were to put a recording of a piano for comments, those who instantly come up with harsh criticism of the EBVT III would not have the same kind of comment about the flawed attempt at ET. Indeed, what I truly believe that if the recordings which are identified as the EBVT III had not been so identified, those who criticize it so harshly would have never noticed. They may have even praised what they heard.

So, it is not that I mind criticism, I see it for what it is: a rejection of the idea itself. If I had approached the artist for whom I worked last Friday, for example and asked him if he would like to try an unequal temperament or a non-standard tuning, the answer would surely have been, "No". Instead, I never even saw him before he arrived on stage to perform. He played the piano and clearly liked what he heard and took it upon himself to say so publicly. How could it be that he would have an opinion that was so completely different than Isaac's, for example? Why did he not, after rehearsing before the show, ask me to "correct" the tuning? He did (through the house director) ask me to fix the pedal squeak but also commented that the tuning was fine. Why didn't he notice what Isaac or any of the others notice? Why did he instead, actually like what he heard if it is so objectionable?

So, don't take what I say as being defensive. I am only trying to point out that the offense is fabricated and disingenuous.

Wow! No wonder you do not tolerate the opinions of others.

You make my point, Jeff. The ET only crowd essentially says to performing musicians, "I am right, you are wrong".

I have only once performing musician specifically ask for a temperament, and that was on a harpsichord. He liked it, I did not, but I did not say he was wrong.

I tune equal temperament because I prefer it on pianos. I have never had a musician complain about it. If they want something else, they have to tell me explicitly what they want, and I will give it to them if I can, but that has never happened. So tell me, Mr. Bremmer, how am I saying to performing musicians that they are wrong? For that matter, is it not far more likely that you are telling performing musicians who may prefer equal temperament that they are wrong?

I'm wondering how many performers even know they have a choice?

Hello,

Bill you write:

..."The EBVT III contains a total 0f 16.8 cents worth of deviation from ET. When plus versus minus deviation is considered, there is only 12.8. I submit that if one of these people were to put a recording of a piano for comments, those who instantly come up with harsh criticism of the EBVT III would not have the same kind of comment about the flawed attempt at ET. Indeed, what I truly believe that if the recordings which are identified as the EBVT III had not been so identified, those who criticize it so harshly would have never noticed. They may have even praised what they heard."...

Indeed, I enjoyed some of the EBVT samples that have been posted. In my opinion, and listening "musical", EBVT sounds quite close to the ET I can talk about, and generally speacking EBVT can sound better than many quasi-ET? failed in reverse well.

(O) This, together with its ETD tuneability, can be thought and proposed as a respectable and satisfactory tuning.

Then, things get difficult on some other issues: today a temperament has to offer a shareable reason, and this reason can not be only a "label" like UT, Well, non-equal, ET or what so ever, nor can that reason be "all my customers love it", simply because most of us could say the same: how good, my customer loves my tunings (check dentists, I guess each one of us can suggest a very good one). Customers are not pro-tuners, meaning that we may have higher standards and a different sensitivity threshold.

Also running ET down and wanting to establish a supremacy through sticky clichés or brain hammering or prosaic words does not help either.

And, an ET world against you may be only an unfortunate projection of yours. I'd rather distinguish my source of satisfaction from a call to arms. One point could be "let's enjoy our tuning".

Regards, a.c.

BDB, if your musicians had never heard their piano in a different temperament, how would they know to ask for it.

As far as my experience with EBVT III is concerned, and being a professional musician, I did not know what I was missing with EBVT III until I actually heard it on my piano. Perhaps the same can be said of your clients.

If I were a pro-tuner, I would want to explore any and all ways to improve what I do. What might be interesting, would be to tune 1 or 2 of your clients pianos in EBVT III without telling them..see what their reactions are.....you might be surprised at the results.

Are you willing to pay me for this?

You are of course assuming that pianos that I tune do not sound better than what you are used to. That could very well be an unwarranted assumption.

BDB, I am not assuming that at all. I think I can assume however, that the pianos you tune sound great because you are successful and in business. You must be doing something right.

I was responding to your statement that you prefer ET, so you tune your clients pianos in ET. That's perfectly fine. My suggestion was to push the envelope and expose your clients, who probably have never heard EBVT III on their pianos, to a different way of tuning, and in doing so, they might like it better than ET, then again they may not. What would you have to lose in trying that? If...they do like it better, you have gained their respect even more.

Perhaps a better and less expensive way to go so as to not impact your business, would be for you to tune your own piano in EBVT III when you have some free time, and see if it's something that would appeal to your clients.

In closing, I am not suggesting that what you do is inferior to EBVT III, I am just saying to maybe explore outside the 'norm'.

Thanks GP. I can use the same arguments the ET only guys use. Nobody ever asked me for ET. My clients like the way I tune the piano and I like the way the piano sounds the way I tune it. I wouldn't want to risk having to tune the piano back to the EBVT III after somebody says they liked the way I used to tune it better. Who is going to pay me for that? This ET thing was just some theoretical experimental tuning by some mad scientist named Helmholtz who worked out a bunch of numbers on paper but a lot of people were suckered into it because it sounded like a good idea. No matter how people tried to describe how to tune it, hardly anybody could ever get it right. A guy named Jorgensen wrote a big book on it all, thicker than all the books on ET combined! I'm going with the solid research, not some experiment! We have to have a tuning style that works best for all music, since we don't know what the pianist will play. The EBVT III does work for all music but ET ruins a lot of it. Saps the energy right out of it! ET goes against the way that tuning was done throughout all music history until people started promoting this experimental thing that I'm just not buying! Everything sounds wrong to me when I hear it! I'm sticking with what works for me and has worked since 1992! A lot of other technicians and musicians agree with me on this too. I'm playing it safe!

Bill, you write:

..."This ET thing was just some theoretical experimental tuning by some mad scientist named Helmholtz who worked out a bunch of numbers on paper...

Mad scientist? Are you talking about Hermann von Helmholtz?

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

You write:...but a lot of people were suckered into it because it sounded like a good idea."...

That is your opinion, does it justify this war of yours?

..."No matter how people tried to describe how to tune it, hardly anybody could ever get it right."...

Today things go differently, anybody can tune what ever he/she likes, aurally or with an ETD.

..."A guy named Jorgensen wrote a big book on it all, thicker than all the books on ET combined!"...

Thicker? what do you mean?

..."I'm going with the solid research, not some experiment!"...

To me, it seems that you are happily going with a bunch of ETD numbers, a bunch of cents deviation what from? ET. And as I say it can work, and more, anyone can play with an ETD, add or sottract some 0.nth cents and call his/her own temperament what ever they like. Nothing wrong with that, actually very democratic indeed, quasi-ET variants for all tastes. Then, no need to fight a war.

..."We have to have a tuning style that works best for all music, since we don't know what the pianist will play. The EBVT III does work for all music but ET ruins a lot of it. Saps the energy right out of it!"...

A tuning style that works best? Personal opinions and preferences only do not allow you to state that, so that sounds strange.

..."ET goes against the way that tuning was done throughout all music history until people started promoting this experimental thing that I'm just not buying!"...

Do you mean: since "people started promoting this experimental thing" music and music history has stopped? This to me sounds very odd thinking. Out of your own experience, you approach ET as a threat, but ET has made and is making history, and it has evolved too...if only you wanted to know more.

..."Everything sounds wrong to me when I hear it!"...

Really? You did not say that about my tuning, could you tell Stopper when you heard his tunings?

..."I'm sticking with what works for me and has worked since 1992!"...

Fair enough, this sounds reasonable. But all the rest you wrote?

Regards, a.c.

Yes Bill, I understand that when someone says they think differently that you take it to mean they are saying you are wrong and they are right. But when you say that I am wrong and you are right, I cannot take it to mean that you are saying that you think differently.

Stating opinions and making judgments is not the same thing and they are not interchangeable. When you learn to truly respect other people’s opinions you can have more productive conversations.

Jeff and Alfredo, I certainly do respect other people's opinions. However, when I read things like, "When people ask for a tuning, they expect just one thing like when you order a cup of coffee, you expect one thing"; or, "What if she wants it to sound like a piano, not an organ?", I see the same kind of "brick wall" facetious arguments I made.

Jeff, I continually see from you (regarding the EBVT III) things like, "Thank you for posting the examples of the EBVT III, now I know I will never try it", "I don't like the sound", "Everything sounds wrong to me". You have the right to that opinion, of course but don't I have the same right to say that about ET? If I do say the same thing, why does that mean I disrespect your opinion but such statements by you show no disrespect at all?

So here goes: I won't tune in ET because I don't like the sound. I won't even try ET because I have heard it and I don't like it. When I hear a piano in ET, everything sounds wrong to me. There. I said it and I mean it. I didn't say you were wrong to have your opinion about it or wrong to tune in ET. I just said that I don't like it. So, how is that any more disrespectful of your opinion than what you said? It is only disrespectful in your mind because in your mind, you are right and I am wrong.

In the example you gave of tuning a piano at a show and noticing that there was a tuning problem with the bass and guitar, rather than intervening, particularly since these were student musicians, you set yourself above them. You were right, they were wrong. You tuned the piano "right" and the fact that they were wrong was their problem and you wouldn't lift a finger to do anything about it. The only "right" tuning was the proverbial "each pitch unequivocally equidistant from the other" ala Isacoff. Only that makes music, in your opinion. Any other opinion is wrong and just to have another opinion is disrespectful of your opinion.

Well, I do happen to have a different opinion about what makes music from the piano sound its best and I would have helped the guitarist and bassist make their instruments compatible with it as I have done on many occasions. I would not have taken the condescending attitude that I tuned the piano "right" and make no apologies for it.

Alfredo, obviously what I said about Helmholtz was satire.

Bill:

The guitarists were not students, they were semi-professional musicians. Even if they were students, I would not stick my nose where it does not belong. It is up to their teachers to teach them how to tune their instruments.

But let’s take this a step further. Let’s say that they were students and the teachers had taught them to tune that way. Perhaps two different teachers taught them to tune two different ways. The question remains as to what could I do in such a situation. The best I could do is tune ET.

You say that you respect the opinions of others, but when I explain that “Well, I just don’t think that way.” you call it condescending. No, you do not recognize when someone is stating an opinion and therefore cannot respect what is stated. And yes, that is a judgment (shared by others) and not just an opinion.

It would take me months of study to begin to do an adequate job tuning a new temperament; even longer if it is one only vaguely explained. That is because I only do professional-level tunings. To devote that kind of effort for dubious results is more than I am willing to do, particularly on the basis of a bunch of recordings of out-of-tune, bad-sounding pianos, or the word of someone who cannot get a piano to stay in tune for more than a couple of days. The hacks and the amateurs can do that.

How many concert-level tuners have any of you convinced to tune in this temperament? How many commercial recordings? Any? If the advantages are so great, there should be plenty of them.

I see BDB, "months of study" you say for such a professional tuner as yourself. Well, of course no one would want you to spend "months of study" to be able to tune, at least your piano, in a different temperament, after all, you are a professional tuner and you do professional level tunings.... time is money. Far be it from me, who I guess in your book is some kind of "hack", to suggest to you to try a different approach.

I have never asked you to take my word about anything. It was you that took it upon yourself to share your displeasure about EBVT III and now, my piano, tuning, and recordings of EBVT III. That's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.

Btw, thanks for your encouragement in learning to tune better. I am sure glad you are the ONLY professional tuner on this forum that treats "hacks" and "amateur" tuners like this..if you were not, I would not continue to post here on PW, and by the way, I will continue to post here on PW, my journey with my recordings, using EBVT III, and my continued experience in trying to learn to tune my piano better. I don't mind criticism if it's constructive.

It's not worth it for me to try and defend my recordings, tunings etc for someone like you, suffice it to say I have nothing but positive emails, msgs and postings here on PW regarding the beautiful tone, timbre and the overall sound of my M&H BB.

Your attitude clearly demonstrates you have a major bias, and, a major problem dealing with other ways of tuning a piano, not to mention your attitude towards "hacks" and "amateurs".

Hi all,

this thread's still busy!

I tuned a Yamaha C7 yesterday, the (classical) piano player in an upcoming concert wanted it raised to 442 Hz from 440. He said something like "It's in tune, but too low for the flute recital".

So, I went there to pitch-raise it. I played it upon arrival, and it sounded good, except for a midrange stretch that was too wild for me. Then I put the strip mutes in, and checked ascending 3rds.

They were not progressive at all. It was not EBVT III, but neither was it by any means ET. It wasn't reverse well either, because C major was as calm as could be.

The tuner who tuned the piano a while ago is the #1 concert tuner in this area. It was a great lesson for me. Listening with non-tuner ears, the piano sang beautifully. Analyzing it with strip mutes inserted, it was all mathematically wrong.

Jeff: Whether you notice it or not, you ARE far from objective, as is Bill. And my question is who ever asked for objectivity in this matter?

Bill is passionate and undoubtedly crosses the line repeatedly, but who draws that very line? I would get crazy much sooner than him.

There is nothing automatically right about preferring the mathematically correct mainstream. There is no correct center from where deviations will take place. There is a mathematically center where everything is even, yes. But that doesn't necessarily make it the right end to aim for. In fact, to me (subjective as any opinion should be), that center is sterile and rather unnatural.

Life in itself is uneven. Few, if any of us, are centered. To be right on the spot would mean summoning all human deviations, becoming neutral. That indeed is the spot in the middle, but that spot ain't a sweet spot to me.

Maybe this is what I like about EBVT III. There is something humanly imperfect about it. Light shining through the cracks, to loosely quote Leonard Cohen.

I really like Bill's approach, because it stems from a musical point of view, and from his passion for music. This goes for his way of tempering 5ths in EBVT III, for his mindless octaves, and for his encouraging belief that ET (or temperaments in general) is no mathematical gift reserved for the selected few - that all of us, through his helpful demystifying of the magics, can reach it with our average ear, just listening.

Well, you can have your opinions about EBVT III, but please don't say that it's vaguely explained. It's one of the most clear and simple tuning sequences I've ever encountered.

No doubt it will take a while to do adequately, but why the rush? ET doesn't get under your hands over a night, either.

Funny thing is that many passionate people around here post recordings. Isaac, Alfredo, Glen, Gadzaar, Grandpianoman, me myself - we all do that. Others, again, place themselves in the tuning supreme court seat. Although I respect you much and am grateful of your help in my own tuning journey, I have no idea whatsoever of how you tune. I just know you from your critique of other tuners tunings, and you seem to be picky and very determined of what the piano should sound like.

So, if you care about this in a non-bashing way, why not post some non-dubious ETs of yours? I'd really like to hear what a piano tuned by you might reveal.

Pat:

Of course opinions can be subjective. That is what preferences are, and it is obviously a preference when I say something sounds wrong to me.

As far as obtaining mathematically correctness, when considering a piano's iH, it is not a simple thing to even decide what parameters to base a tuning on. Having progressive audible RBIs is just the start.

But I cannot agree with you when you say ”To be right on the spot would mean summoning all human deviations, becoming neutral.” It think more on the lines of: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” Robert Browning.