Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Should There Be A Standard?

I said the interval activity is not exactly provided by the beat rate at the lowest level. if not you would not left A C# at 7.7. I hear that interval faster than that.

Now what are you looking for ? a progressiveness of FBI or a level of consonance in the 12th, octaves, 5ths ? both ?

In the end the FBI speed does not say us much about how the tuning is sounding. Does not look bad nut it does not say much.

I believe that consistency in 12 ths is generally noticed in a light progression and some coherence in the M6, more than with M3

As I listen to the recording while looking at the numbers, I think the numbers are accurate.

The purpose of the recording was to judge my sense of beatrate progression. But other things are involved like scaling and pin setting.

My goal in tuning is to have consistent 12ths, octaves, 5ths, 4ths, M6s and M3s in that order.

Thank you for the answer. May be you are right,

Then those intervals (12th octaves and 5ths) , you could record them. the 12th is indeed a good rule to know the maximum of enlarging, and also it is very strong. Now it is not necessary to have them acoustically pure in my opinion.

Consistency mean consonance ? they are supposed to tone the same color, or have some kind of progression from low beat to pure ?

When spreading the temperament, you tune octaves to obtain the 12th ? I noticed the M3 are really at the end. The fun is that 2 totally different venues are obtained depending on what intervals the temperament is based on. it is not supposed to be so, but ...

Regards

Olek:

Consistent: Having a character that changes smoothly through the scale.

No, I will not post the 12ths. The question is about discerning beatrates. I don't want to get Off Topic. Besides I have better things to do.

very good resume

You are welcome, I thought you where trying to prove that the M3 and M6 are relatively consistent when the tuning is based on slow beating intervals scheme.

Not at all OT in my opinion.

Regards

The CM3 sequence would have compared, right at the beginning,
F3-A3 = 6.7
A3-C#4 = 7.7
C#4-F4 = 10.9
F4-A4 = 12.9
It would have compared the beat rates without knowing their absolute values.

Although you point out quite correctly that they are progressive, I would submit that one could have picked out that...
1) The difference between F3-A3 and A3-C#4 is too small, while
2) The difference between A3-C#4 and C#4-F4 is too big.

The remedy would be to lower both F3 and F4.

Perhaps this is what Bill was referring to.

Thanks Isaac....Yes, I did the tuning.....all this is a work in progress, learning how to improve my tuning.

Here is another example of this temperament. recorded the same day as the Rachmaninoff above.

https://app.box.com/shared/static/jn675d9vma4djqils45t.mp3

How would the professional tuning world come up with a "standard" when there are so many wonderful ways to tune "ET" etc?

ET is a hypothetical to begin with.

I have actually been thinking of doing that. My new smart phone can do some amazing things, including actual documentation of RW when I find it.

A couple of new guys in the area have wanted to observe how I would tune a typical piano. They had both bought the correspondence course that lots of people fall for because it is cheaper than the good one. Cheap tools and a C fork.

The sequence that the course teaches is the very same one as from the Braide-White book minus anything at all about RBI's. Just the straight 4ths & 5ths. Little wonder why none of them who use that sequence can get it right so they immediately go buy a Peterson Strobe tuner (also recommended by Dr. Braide-White and the correspondence course).

Last week I showed one man how to tune the whole piano by ear on a Baldwin Hamilton. That scale causes the F3-A3 M3 to be slower than usual. Today, I tuned a small grand for another man using the same method and temperament sequence.

Even though it is something I rarely do, the sequence I use produces perfect results every time. I am not talking about the Marpurg sequence either. It is the "Up a 3rd, up a 3rd, down a 5th" sequence that everybody thinks means I pull 3rds out of thin air but that is not true. I tune all 4ths & 5ths after the initial set of CM3's. There is at least one check available after each note is tuned and that is what keeps the tuner on track. There are no cumulative errors and no compounding of errors.

Does that mean it can't be a standard?

So is everything else.

Not really except CM3 are not a requirement for the PTG exam and that if you can't hear that they not precisely progressive who cares?

Thus far nobody has been able to make them contiguous, but I'm sure the pianos sound just fine.

Kees

Are YOU hypothetical, BDB?

You are correct. Progressive CM3s are not explicitly required to pass the PTG exam. But if you take progressive M3 and apply the allowable error, the CM3s remain progressive.

I hope many more tuners post recordings. I continue to believe that progressive M3s and M6s are barely attainable. Maybe it should be considered a goal, not a standard.

Greetings,
Barely attainable? They either or or they are not. Progressive thirds, sixths, and m3rds were considered the standard where I was taught. We were also taught to vary the progression if needed to render a fifth or octave more acceptable. Scales can interfere with our pursuit of mathematical perfection, but human ears rarely have the ability to hear any difference in the output of the piano due to minor deviations in step size between the thirds. I'm talking about 1 cent deviations at the most.

At some degree of resolution, there is no way for the intervals to increase perfectly, as inharmonicity would exert its unequalizing force. If we get to the realm of "How exactly progressive", do we stop at 1% deviation from the mathematical ideal? 10%? Where will it end? Once again, I haven't seen this small amount of inequality render the sound of an ET discernibly different.

How about if we define "progressive" as every third beating faster than the one below, and slower than the one above? This is easy to hit. This requirement doesn't leave too much room to get ET out of place, and if all the cumulative error isn't located in one place, will pass the PTG tests with little problem. It will be perceived as equal by any listener I have ever encountered, and any increase in evenness in the thirds will be academic, musically.
Regards,

Are you sure? I thought the error margin was 1 cent and we computed the tolerance earlier to be 0.2 cent for progressive M3's didn't we?

I agree with your idea of the standard. The meter is also a standard but if I order a meter beer in a Dutch pub it could be 99.3cm.

Kees

When often the tuner does not leave a "perfect progression in temperament octave, this is corrected in 10th s when spreading, with some backtrack if necessary.

I was trained to tune those progressive M3 but hardly considered that as an ultimate goal, be it at the expense of slow beating intervals.

But the recipes for Chas for instance imply to listen directly to 5ths beat and also to some low activity in octave (not at 4:2 or 6:3, more at 2:1 in my opinion.
The
It provide in the end an extremely precise and slow progression of beats.

Seem to me that the tuners that focus on slow beating intervals obtain more consistency in the fast beating ones that way.

No much mistakes allowed in temperament, can be backtracked only up to 2 notes off.

Sorry, I meant the PTG test allowable error, like 0.9 cents, before a deduction in points if I remember right.

I did notice that both the F3-A3 and the F3-D4 were slow indicating that F3 was sharp but declined to give any real excuses. The sequence would have little to do with it at this point of polishing. Really, I had just had enough of fighting it and decided to make the recording. Another piano and another time, perhaps.

The dog would have caught the rabbit if he hadn't stopped to take a ...