Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum So in tune that it sounds terrible

Interesting concept

So...
Don't try to make a Baldwin into a Steinway.
And, don't try to make a Steinway into a Baldwin.

Makes sense!

A great pianist can make a boring sterile piano come alive to some degree. I had the humbling experience of a phenom pianist play on a piano I've had for over 20 years and I can truly say I had never heard it sound that way before.

Thanks, Emmery. This is not exactly what I was attempting to convey, but your point is well-taken. My point was: once we open Pandora's box - that is, a temperament smorgasbord for one and all - it may be very difficult to shut it.

I stand by my definition of tuning:

It's part arithmetic and part flower-arranging.

Hi ! what you state there is true but relates to the low iH level of some of those pianos.
That make the unison building more difficult, and also the ear wish a bit more iH in my opinion.
When obtained with enlarging of intervals, the beats in octaves and doubles is more easily perceived on such instruments than on medium ih instruments.

However they have a little more tightened spread of the partials that gives that clear tone.

I believe that we talk of something else there.

The unison is "build" or not.

Not build mean simply "tuned" (no audible beat)

Keeping the result at that level the tuner have no control on the tone of the instrument, only a good pianist will allow the piano to beging to sound better after a few hours of playing and intense use of the sustain pedal.

And it is easy for the pianist to locate flaws in ET, of course.

Plus if a piano is heard with a well done ET the customer can hear its real tone, if he have a bad piano may be he will look for a better one.

If he always plays on an approximately sounding instrument, I believe he is in a dead end.

If the piano you are tuning is in Reverse Well when you get there, do you have a choice? That was the case for the Jazz concert I tuned for on March 9 (link posted in the "Best UT for Jazz" thread).

It always makes people angry that I bring up the fact that so many pianos I encounter were assumed to be in ET from the last technician but were, in fact, in Reverse Well. So, then I choose to use a UT and I am supposed to charge another tuning fee to go to it the day after the concert and tune it back, back, BACK to Reverse Well?

The topic of this discussion is about a piano that has just been tuned and somehow sounds less than ideal. It is only an assumption that the reason is unisons that sound "too perfect". It could also be for many other reasons: too little or too much stretch, pitches drifting flat when tuning unisons but not corrected and yes, a temperament that doesn't turn out to be what was intended.

Recently, in a private group discussion among PTG examiners, it was noted that among some RPT's that were asked to participate in an exam, some of them apparently knew few, if any aural tuning checks that would serve to verify or disprove electronically scored errors. Someone once questioned in another thread with regards to Reverse Well how anyone could ever do that when there are a myriad of checks available which would prevent it from happening.

Apparently, not everyone who tunes pianos knows all of those checks. I have seen more than a few You Tube videos which show that.

It also is quite evident to me that the technicians who scoff at the use of non-equal temperaments the most are those who know little or nothing about them. It is all right in previous posts on this thread. No idea what they are talking about but broadcasting it world wide.

In line with the original post ... I tuned in a music store when I was first learning the craft. The store had a top-flite tech, and I was curious about his tunings and checked some pianos on the sly after he was done. The grands sounded marvelous, but, to my ear, the smaller uprights sounded technically perfect, but a bit lifeless.

When I mentioned it to a blind tuner who worked at the same store, he smiled and said something to the effect that music is not an exact art, but he wouldn't elaborate.

Too late, there is a large, and growing number of techs and customers that are familiar with the alternatives.
Regards,

Thanks, Ed. Curious to know if this change is driven largely by either the economic needs of techs or by client request. If it is too late to turn the clock back as you say, then it is for practical purposes, moot. Still it would be enlightening to know. Not sure how I would have functioned in the new model. Suppose I'd have to finally learn the ETD methods. Only so much can be stored in an old cranium. Thanks again.

You cannot have all pure thirds if you divide an octave into 12 tones. Three major thirds do not make an octave, nor do four minor thirds. The upshot is that if you make one interval purer, you have to make another interval worse.

Inharmonicity has nothing to do with temperament. Inharmonicity is the same, no matter what temperament one uses.

Is'nt that interesting. I just wrote in a PM about an Hungarian (I think) tuner who came over here during WW2 who tuned a fine ET on Grands and larger uprights and UT on smaller uprights.

I also wrote some time ago on a thread about spinets how I found that tuning them unequally, or, rather, letting them be tuned unequally worked well for me.

Left to my own devices, I tend towards a mild UT. I recently prepped and pre tuned a concert instrument in a mild UT without thinking. That piano was going a few hundred miles away when I realised who would be tuning it. I expected repercussione but never got any.

That is interesting, how would you describe it, just temp sequence based, or stopping focus on 3ds, for instance ?

In a tuner's pool all may use a similar temp sequence , is it th case ?
I
The tuner I worked with, one had a clear different CG , I put that only on the temp sequence (begin with A )

Oleg,

The one out of place interval probably did have something to do with the sequence used. What you describe is, in fact an unequal temperament (UT). It isn't equal unless it is. It isn't equal if you intend it to be or think it is, it only is equal if it is.

I would disagree with you on this if we are talking internationally or even outside of a local area. Certainly if a tech is actively promoting alternative temperaments, the people they are in touch with will be aware. I did a call through on all 44 techs from a large metropolitan area nearby a while back and only 2 were willing to tune non-ET. When questioned further these 2 admitted that they only had a few clients who inquired about it lately and they provide the UT's through an ETD template. Neither of them tune it on their own pianos, nor do they promote it as better than ET for any reason.

I have the same attitude. I will tune UT's only on request and will try and leave a card inside the piano clearly indicating the temperament and referance pitch. My worst nightmare would be a decent pianist or tech to come by after my tuning an UT and calling the tuning rubbish, based on ET criteria.

Yes Bill that is what I thought, as you say : what I was not sure is that it can be due to the small iH imperfections or just because first octave was not enlarged enough to allow perfect 5ths eveness.
The second tuner had another 5th different, I dont recall which one and his 3ds where more progressive.
Then a Young tuner that came in the pool used a ladder of third based temp and had more straightening of the 3ds progression, as it was his primarly goal, together with 5ths tuned less tempered than usually.

For the first tuner, the different CG could be noticed in, way less in basses and the nediums and soprano, way less in basses and not at all in high treble.

It was just that his sequence lend to that result and he did certainly find that noon complained. He made more work on unison and octaves than on justness.

The other tuner had a very active tuning with very singing FBI , he tuned in tge piano resonance, or consonance, directly (he was the one that used to lock the sustain pedal while tuning, "when my ears are tired" he said me, huge partial flow in his intervals and unisons,

What I said is as long unison are not build, but all is tuned in a defensive way, (defense against any motion in the unison), using even mild UT can be a huge trap for tuners.

I have so called perfect pitch so I can notice unevenesses, and above a certain point it disturbs me. It happened with the first tuner and some pianists told me they noticed that too. When I asked a few pianists if they hear an interest in a grand I tuned in a mild Well, the first phrase was "it is a little false" .
Then , I agree totally that the ear is pleased with surprises, but my impression is that we have yet some spectral changes provided by the instrument in the bottom of the long bridge, so possibly a tweaked temperament allows a better transition.

Anyway, in those days I was not as attentive to the flavor of 5 ths so I was not as conscious on how important those intervals are for classical harmony.
Without a big love for pure 5 ths out of baroco music The chouces are a little limited.

The late Virgil Smith wrote,

"Pianos tuned in other historical temperaments can sound lovely, if the rest of the tuning is done to a high standard. The same is true with a slightly flawed equal temperament tuning. However, extra time spent in perfecting the temperament is not wasted because of the superior sound and the help in the rest of the tuning.

Though a piano tuned to a less than accurate equal temperament can sound excellent, the tuning will be superior with a better sound when the temperament is a perfect equal temperament.".

Here is the challenge for every tuner and this is what seperates the expert from the mediocre.

I meant pure thirds in those keys which the UT sets pure thirds.

Re iH, If you tune a pure third between C3/E3 and also between C5/E5, for example, with the iH in a piano, there will be beating between the double octaves - C3/C5, and E3/E5, even if you have stretched the octaves before hand, n'est-ce pas? It seems to me that you can't have both pure intervals, which some UTs offer, and not have to compromise as a result of iH. My point is I think, and I may be wrong, that any theoretical temperament can never be achieved in actuality on a piano.

Have you ever actually done the math to see what the effect of inharmonicity is on the beats at different intervals? People attribute inharmonicity to all sorts of things, but if the audible consequences of it are so great, why does it not appear in discussions of the analysis of sound until the electronic era?

You can look at any theoretical temperament closely enough, and discover that they can never be achieved in actuality anywhere. Look at pitch closely enough, and you will find that a theoretical pitch cannot be achieved in actuality anywhere.

You bring up good points. In the electronic era, it has been found that iH is absolutely necessary as a factor in attempts to synthesize (not sample) the sound of a piano.

Actually, very fine vocal quartets, including barbershop, are able to achieve precise tuning of pure intervals that are clearly audible to the listener, even if only for a brief moment.