Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Clean Sounding/Beatless Octaves

Ron, which some folks don't seem to be getting is this,

I am just saying that one needs to check one's work, whether it be spinet, studio or grand. Check your workk as it develops and progresses through the tuning. Now, one needs to realise that in what I am saying, one may not tune a piano as quickly as other folks but in the end it is solid, stable, musical and accurate.

Now, in saying that it may take longer to tune, this needs to be qualified by saying different pianos tune differently and there are different circumstances and situations involved which will make the tuning progress faster or more slowly.

All depending, it takes me anything from +- 45 minutes to 2 hours to tune a piano, from spinet to a large concert grand, which may involve some pitch adjusting too.

When we check our tuning, for instance, tuning a just/clean/pure double octave, what should it be sounding like (whole tone) and what should the M3/M17 be sounding like (whole tone)?

The whole tone just/beatless double octave should sound clean/beatless when checked and listened to as an SBI and the M3/M17 should sound similar/beating, M3=M17, when checked/listened to as an RBI.

To substantiate how just/wide/narrow the double octave is, one can use the P19, D8ve, 12th, 8ve, M3, M10 and M17 (these are just a few tests/checks). Listening to and adjusting/tweaking each interval involved accordingly, to validate and execute any particular interval you are tuning.

The beat speeds/ratios of the intervals and texture of the intervals are all guides and clues as to how your work is progressing and to what needs to be changed or left alone.

Then again, not to take away from all that I have said, Tunelab really does a fantastic job too!

Thanks,

When you determine the type of an octave, do you do that by ear, or only by the ETD?

Bojan, from what I understand about ETD tuning, is that one has an option to adjust the tuning calculation by various means to what one desires.

However, as much as I understand, the principles of SBI and RBI tuning should and do remain the same in order to gauge what is taking place before,during and after the tuning.

In other words, for instance a just 4:2 octave is just that, whether it is tuned and checked aurally or by ETD. Checking an ETD octave, for example, a 6:3/4:2 octave in the middle of the piano would and should give one an RBI check so that the lower M3 is slower than the M10 and then one can listen to the octave itself to confirm whether one likes or dislikes/agrees or disagrees with the outcome and then make the necessary adjustment. Does the M3=M10 or M3>M10 or M3<M10 and then make, hopefully, the minor adjusments accordingly.

In tuning the octave in the middle of the piano, say for instance the F3-F4, to whatever type of octave, one also has the option of checking the P4/P5 and m3/M6 within to check what is going on.

Until there is further light on this, this is my experience, understanding and practice.

So, in brief, I think it is just as Rick Baldassin has written, which basically explains what I am saying, so much better and clearer, the bridging of aural and ETD tuning. Atleast this has been my experience.

Thanks

To be clear I just almost totally stopped checking octave sizes, it is not my priority.

sometime in case of doubt I will try a M3 M10 check in the temperament octave, but I more get an ear "grip" to the fullness of my octave, not tryg to force one direction or another, expecting mostly the feedback from instrument and the room to tell me my octave is OK.

Way more quieter to tune that way.

There is a quiet spot, certainly influenced by other intervals, once the octave is prooved to be good, it is easy to reproduce it.


The ETD is interesting as a limiter, aural tuning will tend to be more open. But that does not mean I will agree with the octave types proposed, nor I will take the trouble to regulate the ETD and then be confident in it.

I agree, to a certain degree Isaac and just to be clear, I am not saying I am the be all and end all to tuning. I am trying to write about my experience in tuning and I think it lines up with other peoples work that have written far better about it than I have.

I just find that for a better, more sure and accurate tuning I check my work. Once again, I re-iterate what Virgil Smith has said,

"The amount of expansion and contraction of each interval necessaery to achieve a quality equal tempered tuning (I would go so far as to say all tuning, whether E.T or H.T), can only be determined by use of tuning checks. Checks are used before the note is tuned to determine if the note is sharp or flat and by how much,during the tuning, and after it is tuned to check the accuracy of the tuning."

This is my understanding and practice.



My ascertion is that a well executed hybrid ETD/Aural tuning allows one much more opportunity to experiment wth and adjust stretch and far easier and more controllable than purely aural tuning.

YMMV

EDT is indeed excellent to experiment, but tend to push me away from tuning, I feel as ruled by a machine which I dont like, because at some point I have lost my judgement.

That is the impression it gives me, even if the results may sound excellent, they are a surprise in the end, not something done consienciously.

My opinion, but I dont wish to argue, I respect any other, in the end I like some tunings more than others, and it is so difficult to say why, it can be due to consonance, eveness, unison quality, adequation with the instrument...

Isaac, I began learnng to tune aurally in 2002 and began tuning aurally for clients in 2005.

I began experimenting with ETD tuning in 2010 and began tuning almost exclusively with and ETD in 2011. In 2012, I began returning to tuning aurally.

It all depends on how I am feeling on any given day. I may tune with an ETD or aurally and or anything in between.

A change is as good as a holiday.

Thanks,

Mark I tuned with all kind of ETD, and in concert environment, so I will not say it did not provide something useful to me, as having a security, being able to make a decent work for the last piano of the day or changing the pitch 1 hour before a rehearsal..

But I finally was tired of the machines, the kind of perfection they provide plus some other drawbacks, as the overpull mod ethat should be used almost always if one want the end result to correspond with the display. Also the ETD does not react to temperature change, i was obliged to have a thermometer at hand, after finishing a tuning at a differnt pitch than the begin.

In the end the main drawback is that you have to wait for the display to judge your pitch. In the meantime no way to make checks (it disrupt the display) and no way to work the appreciation of pitch immediately at the attack.

Then, too much for me, but I know a few concert tuners that dont care much for the piano's own resonance and use the result computed by the ETD.

For some reason, I always have find them a little not natural, too smooth or too "perfect".

I like gadgets and living in this technological age, I think it is necessary to get to grips with and stay in touch with the ETD's and tunng software of today.

However, I do think that it is also necessary for people to get to understand the aural tuning theory and aural application of it too.

I just realised this morning that I am leaving out an important piece of information from Virgil Smiths book, which explains the reason I have so monotonously been saying what I am saying.

"Tuning checks are essential for evaluating the accuracy of the tuning, both during the tuning and when it is completed. It is important to know that each note being tuned is correct, because of the other notes being tuned to it.

Much time can be wasted in retuning notes that were incorrectly tuned to notes not correctly tuned. An octave or interval may sound acceptable, but still not be in tune.
Playing an octave or chord is not a reliable tuning check; neither is playing a piece after the tuning is finished. A skilled tuner can eliminate that "out of tune" feeling (sound) and make the tuning sound acceptable in a few minutes, but the piano will not really be in tune.





Ryans and Rons statements are both correct but also need to be added to.

Though there are numerous reasons to take into account as to why one can or cannot achieve a top quality tuning on any given piano, the reality and necessity to strive for and put into place what Virgil Smith has said about tuning checks is of utmost importance if one would desire to arrive at a place in one’s own tuning career of being a professional piano tuner.

Seasoned tuners have the tone in the ear, particularely for a given piano model, if a tuning have just slept a little, as it is commnon with temperature changes, be sure the tuner will not make a full tuning, taking the risk to lower stability.

So the "concert tuning" on pianos that are often tuned/checked twice a day, will sound similar from one day to the othere but rarely it will be exactly..

Of course checks are necessary, even if restricted to checking the ^progression of fast beating intervals, but on a well know model, an experimented tuner can use one simple test and obtain a good tuning, I have been seeing that often.

When tuning using conscientiously the resonance of the tuning, this give a sort of check, that does not imply comparing intervals.
I often if in doubt of the pitch in the 5th or 6th octave, simply test a 17Th or an octave more, as I know how fast may be that interval.

I am the first surprised to get a progressive speed of those intervals after tuning octaves, but it is at last in the mediums and treble.

As I said, if I where doing more concert work I'd feel more concerned and probably would try to have more checks, but as long as the tone is congruent, I see no reason the checks would indicate something different.

Of course it cannot be stated that checks are unnecessary, that kind of phrase is misleading (hence the added coments)

The thing is : Is an absolute progression of FBI the model for a perfect tuning, or can other parameters be used (as consonance for instance)

What seem to be necessary in an ET environnment is congruency, probably the brain is able to grasp on any mathemaical model and recognize it as some kind of justness (for instance similar beating on all 5ths and too short octaves can make a "just" sensation.)

If I am in a good mood, I feel that I am using the sympathetic resonance of the rest of the piano immediately after the attack, to ascertain the good positioning of a note.

This effect once one is used to perceive it, is clear enough to provide a "hot spot" (see "mindless octaves" concept)

Add a few confirmations (to test a FBI the necessary time is extremely fast, may be 1/4 to 1/2 second depending of the note) and you are done.

When I was using Verituner VT00 in concert environment, we had one of the most appreciated tuner that was able to make an even progression of 3ds, with the VT showing irregularities .

I could not understand the way he listened, at that times, but he mixed all the partials to obtain the speed of the 3ds, the ETD was definitively "out" of that logic.

There has been some suggestion in this thread that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are ideal. I want to reiterate without any reservation, and ask for those who agree to chime in, that 4:2 octaves in the midrange are unacceptable. They do not sound clean, they produce ringing at the 8:4 and higher, and they result in contracted 12ths and triple octaves. When producing a high quality, concert level tuning, the midrange octaves will always be between a 4:2 and a 6:3 upon analysis.

I recall Bill Bremmer speaking about tuning mindless octaves. I have learnt a lot from Bill, though I have had some disagreements with him, usually due to my own misunderstanding though. I began following his writings on this forum in 2006. So many thanks to Bill, and I hope he is well too.

With regard to tuning mindless octaves, I developed a slightly different technique to Bill, but it was due to his writings that I stumbled upon it.

I am quite comfortable to tune RBI's and check my SBI's or tune SBI's and check my RBI's when tuning.

For high treble and low bass, this is where it begins to become a bit tricky, but once again, checking and tuning in these areas with the 8ve, D8ve, minor 14th, minor 21st, 10th & 17th, one can make things acceptable. I also do use ghost tuning in the low bass single mono-chord bass strings on the better quality pianos.

Once again, every piano is different. I tune a wide variety of pianos, from old to new, spinet to Kawai 7ft grands.

I just pulled out an old article by Dan Levitan from 1996, and he says the following,

"Just as there is no one right way to set a pin, so too is there no one right procedure to follow in tuning a piano...

Most of us have acquired a wide repertoire of tests, too many to use practically at each tuning.

Decide in advance which tests you want your tuning to pass and stick with them. For example, you might decide that, in the treble, you're only going to check 4ths, 5ths, single octaves, and double octaves. You're asking for trouble if, after you're finished, you decide to listen to your progression of 10ths and 17ths as well."

Oh, please take note that he is also promoting checking ones tuning!

Kent Swafford wrote with regards to temperament tuning,

"During any refinement procedure the emphasis should be on checking the tuning of one note at a time. Change the tuning of an interval only when you know for sure which note of the interval is in error. If you find an interval that seems to be beating too fast or to slow, individually check the tuning of both notes that form the interval."

This refinement procedure can obviously be applied to the rest of the piano, but please do note it is a refinement procedure!

I have already promoted the following tests for the octave, tempered 12th, double and triple octave:

M3<M10<M17<M6 and
m6 below = M17

Fitting a M10 and a M17 into such a small window (M3<M6) means that if the lower M3 are all evenly increasing (or whatever they are doing) the upper M10s and M17s will match. This is a much more precise and consistent technique than using 4ths and 5ths, which Dan agrees since he admits one's M10s and M17s will not be evenly increasing.

Mark, please re-read Dan's statement. I do not think Dan is saying what you are saying he is saying.

BTW, I do not know what Dan holds to today. As I said it is an old article.

Every piano is different and I tune accordingly. I do not hold fast to any particular sequence except checking my work as I progress and smoothing things out as I go, in order for the best possible tuning for that particular piano.

I do like as clean (consonant) a tuning as possible but will adjust if necessary.

I think that I am a whole lot more flexible when it comes to poor quality pianos and poorly scaled pianos, one just has to get through them, but nevertheless one is checking and getting a feeling for the piano and for what is going on and therefore one is in a better position as to what compromises to make and how.

Mark, on re-reading Dan's statement I think you may have got it right, and I got it wrong.

Is Dan saying in order to obtain progressing 10ths and 17ths up in the treble one should not rely on the 4th, 5th, single and double octave for that particular result?

I actually have misunderstood that statement for some time, but now it has only struck me. I understood it to be saying something else.

Hi Mark,

I think what Dan is saying is quite clear. He is promoting a technique of being consistent with the approach one takes.



He is also using the 4ths and 5ths, single and double octaves, as an example of one way to tune the treble.


at the same time saying it (the example he uses), is inferior.



I mearly wanted to restate my personally developed technique which uses single octave, double octave, 12ths, and triple octave tests to produce the best compromise of those intervals, while at the same time, producing evenly increasing M10 and M17. You see, the even M10 and M17 are a byproduct of the consistent 1/2/3 octaves and 12ths, not an end-all-and-be-all.

In the end, my posts are only devoted your original subject.

Does anybody else use this "window" technique?

I used it yesterday on a pitch raise of a horrible apartment sized Heintzman with mismatched tenor strings and I was pleased with the result. I recorded some 1/2/3 octaves and 12ths and I will post it eventually.

Mark,

I do not use the triple octave test. But I do use the single octave, double octave, M3, M10, M17, M6/M17, P12 and P19 for most of the treble and high treble. Smoothing things out for slightly wide to clean double octaves and or slightly narrow to pure 12ths all depending.

Can you please explain the triple octave test?