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

After all of the incessant arguing over ET vs. UT's, maybe this is a fundamental question we should first ask ourselves.

Should there still be a universally-accepted standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe upon which all musicians can ultimately rely? I'm not talking about what happens in the privacy of one's own home, but what goes on for large groups and itinerant performers.

And please please please, can we keep name-calling and insults off this thread?

I have stated before that there are two standards: Just intonation and equal temperament. These exist by their very nature. Other temperaments are defined by them. The number of beats is the variation from just intonation. The number of cents is the variation from equal temperament.

None of this is to be construed as an endorsement of any temperament. It is just how things are.

One final point: Most instruments do not have any fixed temperament. Even if they do, they are not necessary defined closely. For instance, a pedal harp is supposed to be tuned to a specific temperament which depends on the pedal mechanism, but may vary according to how accurately it is made, or any number of other factors which may not be immediately evident.

If you mean the one used by all major western recording studios, concert halls, tuned percussion manufacturers, broadcasting companies, the default on all electronic instruments, etcetc.

There is. Has been for generations.

Right.

I'm interested to see what the proponents of UT's have to say about it, as they have been disparaging of that standard.

I see at least two questions

1. standard of tuning; something that is a failsafe

I think "failsafe" is the selling point of ET. At least everything sounds the same amount out of tune, so it's consistent. It seems a good fit for romantic, jazz and modern stuff that has dissonant chords and uses different keys without intending to change sharpness of the sound. ET seems less fit for classic and baroque stuff where composers DID use UT and used these changes. ET then still is 'failsafe' but the player then has somehow to compensate for the loss in tonal changes.

2. upon which all musicians can ultimately rely

I don't think it's that easy, musicians will do their best to get a nice performance, so if UT gives them an edge in a particular performance they will consider it. I doubt however that much performers and listeners really bother about, or hear the difference ET-UT.

Hey Jim!

I was actually thinking of starting a thread introducing a "functional ET" based on margin of error - what actually gets tuned in the real world by those aiming at ET.

Consider this target:


Perfect score! All the arrows are in the middle... (Pretend there are as many arrows as notes in the temperament.) Now what's the margin for error for that yellow circle - 1 cent, 1/2 cent? In reality, for the piano to be in ET, the arrows would have to be "Robin Hood style" - splitting each other to fit in a circle the diameter of the arrow - zero margin for error.

We established in the other thread that there is some... slush in the actual placement of ET on real pianos. 1 cent, 2 cents or more for a note or two? And then there are "ET only" techs happy to hit arrows into the blue or black target areas and call it a day...

That would seem to indicate that quite a few temperaments fit in your ideal "standard"...

With that in mind, here is something for you electronic tuning types to try as an ET replacement - all the standard warnings apply as using a machine to set ET on a piano.

Koval variable temperament, 1.3 strength

C 1.3
C# -.17
D .52
D# .78
E -.52
F 1.3
F# -.35
G .87
G# .35
A 0.0
A# 1.13
B -.65

Major thirds range from 11.9 cents wide of just to 15.2 cents wide.

Obviously, the tighter your tuning standards are for open string tuning (4 lights on SAT, full blush RCT, 0.0 Verituner etc..) the cleaner the effect. Simply put, a few keys at the top of the circle play a little "warmer", a few at the bottom are a touch "edgier" and the rest are ETish. Clear to experience the difference by playing Bmaj, Cmaj, C#maj triads in a row.

What I hear back from clients is that my tunings are warmer than other techs. This is my standard in use all over town. The concept is to target in the direction of a mild WT in order to prevent a Reverse Well by accident when the margin for error comes into play.


Ron Koval

Question:

Equal Temperament is a relative term. That is, relative to the temperaments which preceded it. The Robin Hood arrow analogy attempts to define it exclusively as perfect temperament. In an imperfect world no temperament whatsoever will be perfect. Having said this, if we are not going to call it Equal Temperament, then what shall we?

Why, certainly. All they have to do is accept the loss of variety. The desire for universal runs somewhat opposite to the drive for unique, and musical art tends to benefit from unique, not sameness. Do we not enjoy different artists performing the same works? Is it too complex a chore to enjoy the same work in a variety of tunings? The amount of harmonic color in a triad is very much like the amount of salt in a dish. Some want everything to taste the same, others like to sense the balance and interplay of various sensations. I favor the latter, as it is more complex.

"Failsafe" is probably as tight a description for artistic loss as we are likely to find. If the performer isn't taking chances, it is a dead show.
regards,

Absolutely. Generally speaking, I think most here who advocate the use of ET concede that it isn't perfect. I always refer to it as a series of relatively consistent compromises, or, equally out of tune.

A solo performer, perhaps, but if you've got a symphony orchestra and a cast of singers in an opera, perhaps not.

To me, there's a difference.

What's wrong with the artist giving "informed consent"? After all, they are supposed to be professionals. If they don't understand the difference between ET and UTs, they should make in effort to learn at least a little about it, IMO.

Further, why should an artist be limited? If he/she wants ET, fine. If he/she wants a UT, fine.

Btw, there's ET, and then there's ET. There can be all sorts of legitimate variations in stretch choices. Should there be only one acceptable amount of octave stretch in all circumstances? How far should this standardization go?

Voicing... Should all pianos be voiced the same way? Do we want only one standardized voice for all pianos that all manufacturers, and their technicians, should adhere to?

Should we have one standard wood finish? Should all pianos be ebony colored? Or, dark walnut?

Only one standard touchweight?

WHat are we talking of standards.

Music that I receive when I did not ask just leaved the 3 chords pattern for a 2 chords one.

Rhythm have gone to 120 bps 2/2 so some tuner pretend you can learn to count beat by remembering of that 120 pulse.

out of tuneless that relates to UT's is not appreciated by pianists as they need to play a whole range of music .

Itmay be done on ancien instruments in a particular context, never was asked on a modern one. If I would tune one the pianist would play and consider it as sloppy , most of the time.

Too stretched tunings as well can be considered out of standard tune.

Make your tuning fit your customer's needs(wants, desires). If you can play a pretty song after you finish tuning the piano, and it makes her cry, then you have done your job.

The big irony is that a cast of opera singers, left to themselves in close harmony, would naturally sing to just intonation -- not equal temperament.

It would be a great argument if it were true. It's a common assumption.
Listen carefully. In my experience, the major thirds as sung by professional opera principals and chorus tend to be wider than ET. The strings in the orchestra do the same thing if you listen. (they also do it if you don't listen).

It is barbershop that tends toward purer M3rds but not all the time.

Actually, it is true. Basically any unaccompanied (a cappella) singing will naturally tend to just intonation or other natural temperaments (e.g., pythagorean).

Yes, in our "modern" times, opera singers (and violinists) who are trained to be part of an orchestra are also "trained" to sing/play in equal temperament. But leave them alone, unaccompanied by a tempered instrument, and sooner or later they will gravitate to some form of just intonation (which there are many).

There have been a lot of research into this phenomena. Here's a good recent one from the Norwegian Academy of Music through observations of some of the best classical vocal ensembles in the world:

http://musicandpractice.org/musicandpractice/article/view/18/6

Yes, I've read that too. Many things appear true on paper. It's good to hear that the subject is being addressed at least at a local level but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nobody's complaining about the intonation of a good orchestra or opera group. It's not the problem.

I only ask you all to listen for yourself. Recorded or live, (preferably). It is readily discernible to me.

And where on earth does anybody get the idea that Pythagorean is a "natural" temperament and what does that mean anyway? I hope you didn't imply that the arrangement of the 12 notes cunningly called just intonation was another natural temperament. That surely would be a readily apparent contradiction in terms. So is the idea that there are many forms of just intonation. Just is just.

I'm not sure I want my opera experience to sound the same as my barbershop experience.

Has anybody ever attempted to tune a simple major scale without the need for something to be averaged?. Even a seemingly simple diatonic peal of 8 bells has to be tempered on at the very least a few notes. Ask Barry at the Whitechapel foundry.

Thank you, rxd. I thought I was the only one to have heard several a-capella choirs sing M3s that are at least as wide as ET, and often wider. Nothing just about them. And these are not orchestra musicians that have somehow been "spoiled" by years of ET "training".

For those interested, I have an even simpler example than rxd's diatonic peal of 8 bells, from my own experience. Even a simple pentatonic wind chime, the pipes tuned for example to D, E, G, A and B, must have some tempered notes (i.e. some intervals will always beat), because some of the overtone ratios don't line up perfectly. In the above example:
1) the E can be tuned as a "major wholetone" (9/8) to the D, making it beatless to the A, but beating (narrow) against G and B. Or...
2) E can be tuned down by a syntonic comma, making it a "minor wholetone" (10/9) to the D, beatless to G and B, but now beating (wide) against A. Or...
3) E can be tuned as as a compromise between the two, e.g. an ET wholetone to D, now almost beatless against G, A and B.

(Been there, cut and fine-tuned copper pipes... choices, choices, choices, even on five little pieces of pipe. Looks nice, sounds quite OK, but there's nothing "just" about that E.)

Solo violin will enlarge the M3 as a natural melodic tendency.

context wise