Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum 4ths and 5ths, I love 'em

So a piano tuned in meantone or in a Well Temperament can not be in tune with itself?

I find this confusing. A piano in tune with itself is a piano where octaves, and all other intervals sound "in tune", i.e. as intended in this temperament, i.e. "as expected".

For example, a piano tuned at the theoretical frequences of ET or any other temperament won't be in tune with itself because iH will make all intervalls sound bad.

If you tune a piano to an organ or even to another piano, in a note by note basis, there you have a piano not in tune with itself!

I see no reason why ET should be the unique Temperament to have a piano in tune with itself. In ET all intervals are tempered, some of them, RBIs, are beyond the limit of what was considered harmonious in the past. So for me ET is the less "in tune" of all historical temperaments.

Gadzar:

Every stretch scheme to expand an UT on an iH instrument changes the temperament during the expansion. I do not see how a piano can be in tune with itself when the temperament changes from one part of the piano to another. This is why I said that a piano can only be in tune with itself when tuned to ET.

Now you can play all the word games you want with what ET is, but it does not change the fact that stretch schemes change the character of UTs, but not ET.

Stretch schemes change the character of ET also.

Octaves, and any other intervals, are not the same width in the center than in the bass and the treble!

The most used schemes usually take 4:2 octaves in the center, 6:3 in the bass, and something between 3:1 and 4:1 in the treble. That gives irremediable different sizes of 5ths, 4ths, M3s, etc... along the scale.

And this happens for any kind of temperament you choose!

If you have access to an ETD you can measure in cents the width of a given interval in a fine tuned piano, and you'll see that it changes from bass to middle to treble!

Gadzar:

Earlier in this Topic it was posted that the octaves when tuning EBVTIII are of varying types, not progressive types.

Measuring the width of an interval in cents does not indicate how it is tempered. ET stands for Equal Temperament, not Equal Width. Like I said, your word games won't change the facts.

I don't understand what you do not see. Your definition of being "in tune with itself" probably differs from mine. From my point of view a piano "in tune with itself" would have perfect P5's, perfect M3's, m3's and so on. Since this is not possible temperaments decide how to distribute this "out of tuneness". Either evenly, or with a consideration for key characteristics.

The new thing in the mix with EBVTx is that the uneven distribution is not the same in each octave.

It's certainly possible to have stretch schemes that do not change the character of UT's. Bill's is not one of them.

How come you're such an ET fanatic? You play Anton Webern pieces for relaxation on your piano?

Kees

Why bother arguing any more? Nothing ever said here on PWF ever changed my mind in the least about what I do every day and have been doing for over 20 years. At this point, I would only say that it has all been covered before, so look it up in the archives.

"Therefore you might slander, thinking and saying what you wanted. In this matter, I have a clear conscience. Take care so that someday your slandered conscience will not accuse you on your deathbed." -- Andreas Werckmeister.



Kees

"Deathbed"?

And who is trying to change anyone’s mind? Here is another of your old, musty straw men that you continue to drag out.

Don’t tell me that you need to change octave widths here and there to make a temperament work and then say that the piano is in tune with itself! In other words: Don’t, er, “spit” on my boots and tell me that it’s raining. I have been around farms enough to know what a barnyard smells like.

No, I prefer more Romantic Era music.

Here is the thing: To me a piano is in tune with itself when it is harmonious, when everything fits together. OK, I should say, when everything fits together as much as possible. As I expand the temperament, more and more intervals are available for checks to see if everything fits together. There can be slight errors in the temperament, or even in the scaling, which do not show up until the temperament is expanded. (This is one reason I prefer using a temperament strip.) To expand a temperament as harmoniously as possible, the temperament needs to be equal.

That’s it.

You're entitled to your opinion.

So far, I agree. I find HTs interesting and educational and I think they have their place, but my own preference is ET. It has a symmetry and balance that I find beautiful, like a kaleidescope of sound. The smoothness and uniformity creates a feeling of harmoniousness beyond what is even really there.

HTs are valuable because they actually encourage people to listen to the tuning, which so often they take for granted. If anything, it has given me an even greater appreciation of ET.

I hope you're not serious!

This is always such an interesting phenomenon - the opinion that an atonal temperament is somehow "more" harmonious sounding then a tonal temperament....

I suppose if by "more harmonious" you mean that it satisfies your tests for checking for an atonal tuning, then yes I suppose that's true. But time and time again in "blind taste tests" any number of tonal temperaments have been shown to be preferable - from the bench or audience when the piano is used to make music.

Ron Koval

I am glad you mentioned this. I have been wondering just what I mean by “harmonious”. One regular customer says they like my tuning because it is “resonant”. Well, the two things are similar if not identical.

But what brought this Topic to this point was the question of whether a piano is more in tune with itself when tuned to ET or a UT. I recognize that being in tune is not always the way to reach a goal. Many 12 string guitar pieces come to mind.

I have no problem with an ET while others prefer an UT even if it is because it satisfies my technical, rather than musical ear. Likewise, I prefer a ceiling that is smooth over one that is textured. I know what it takes to finish a perfectly smooth ceiling and admire them for that reason.

So back to a piano being in tune with itself. The problem, of course, is some if not all intervals have to beat. But there is no doubt in my mind that ET will produce a tuning where the beating of the SBIs (including octaves) will be less noticeable than with any UT because they are tuned so similarly to each other. And this goes hand in hand with what I perceive as a harmonious or a resonant tuning.

Ron,

I would be interested to know what blind tests you refer to. I have heard of a couple but results indicated that the audience was pretty much split 50/50 (and this was an audience of piano tuners!) which indicates that generally audiences can't tell the difference, even if they have educated ears.

To me, the uniformity of intervals in ET is what gives me a feeling of harmoniousness. It feels smoother, and everything seems to fit together musically. Having all the intervals the same width creates a feeling of "rightness" about them because the sound is predictable and consistent.

Of course, I expect that this uniformity is what leads some people to think that ET is dry or boring. That's fine. Uniformity is great for piano tuning IMO, but not so good when it comes to appreciating the arts. There is room for many different tastes.

And do the "blind" tests mean that all bias is removed from the person selecting the music, and the performer. Even the pianola/Disklavier tests on this forum are biased with regards to the music chosen.

None of these demonstrations of one versus the other could ever be considered totally "blind" from a scientific point of view. We all do what we believe in. We all get positive or negative feedback from it. I have received negative feedback from ET. I may have lost customers because of the way I have chosen to tune for more than 20 years now. I choose to continue with what I believe in and it is not ET. Neither I nor anyone else can please everyone all the time. I do what I do because overall, I have received much more positive than negative responses to it.

I don't think any scientific blind tests regarding preferred temperament have ever been performed. Too bad, because it would be so interesting. There must be some rich person around to fund such a study, as the American rich are richer than ever.

Kees

I don't know why it would be difficult to be more scientific. What would be ideal would be a test piano like a Yamaha C7 with a disklavier. Make sure the microphones are in exactly the same spot and make a recording of ET and then one of a non-ET. At least then we would know that the differences couldn't be attributed to the player - interpretation, pedaling etc. Picking the right pieces would be helpful too.

I enjoyed listening to Patrick's recordings of Bach and Debussy. However, I think the biggest difference had to do with the interpretation. I think his theory that the tuning effected his interpretation maybe valid. But we can't ignore the placebo effect either.