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

I am unsure what you are prooving here. IS it that a 4th and 5th temperament is good enough for consistency in FBI's ?

If so I agree, you could also record it.

I will try to listen to my record compare the numbers obtained by Kees with what is heard.

I strip mute and it is part of the method, that mean the pitches are not really tuned directly but settle naturally.
It leaves eventually some mistakes as around the plate braces (here f5) but it is a good training to evaluate how much the bridge is moving when tuning.

Tuning unison as you go is faster, it oblige to work the technique of "shimming" (adding the wanted beat level directly in the unison to correct pitches). An important tool for the tuner, particularly when working in octaves as when one have the habit of listening to small corrections in a lot of parasitic noises, he can tune more "directly" than when he need to compare different intervals and beat speeds.

Now when tuning with unisons directly, unless the piano is almost at pitch , one have to take in account the settling.

the danger is getting stuck in stretch then. Those days I hear any noticeable stretch as something that have not its place and that lower the tonal impression.

All aging tuners tend to do so, apparently (may be due to a lower perception of extra high frequencies, my son for instance hear an electronic composant whisle that I do not)

As I refer more to energy (coupling energy) than to partial matches , for tuning, this is not so much of a problem I think.

The "CHAS" is a kind of resonance that have a particular color, so it can be noticed "easily" when looking for pitches.
The tempered 12th maintain some warmness to the M chords, if not, they tend to get so much active they loose meaning IMHO.

Yes, thanks for the numbers. I noticed some trends and it gives me some thoughts. I just don't want to share them, at least for now...

I have tried tuning unisons as I go, and do so outside the temperment strip. But I rarely tune pianos where the hammer mating is good enough to tune unisons as I go. The note I am actually tuning to becomes ambiguous; the "window" of being "in tune" gets larger than with a single string. By leaving the temperment strip in place, there are always single string checks I can use, even if the the note I am tuning to is a unison.

Isaac

What I am saying is that the 4ths and 5ths temperament is good enough to get a decent ET temperament in to place. I stand to correction, but what I have posted, especially the 2nd set of numbers, would pass the PTG exam for the temperament section. If I am right then, that speaks for itself, if I am not, then I need to, as I think most decent tuners do, continue to better and refine my tuning.

The other thing that i am saying is that tuning unisons as you go seems to have some advantages.

Jeff,

Hmmm, interesting!?

As for tuning unisons as I go, I am on a learning curve, so, some things that I perceive that are advantages need to become clearer to me, in order for me to come to a conclusion whether they are or whether they are not.

Thank you,

MArk, the 4ths and 5ths keep you more on the musical side of tuning, and allow to secure octaves (M3 stack less)

Unison allow you to hear the final beat rate so indeed they are interesting.

I like slow beating intervals as you caa listen more easily to the way the energy dissipate when 2 notes are played together.

The same happen with fast beating ones, probably , I feel that too fast M3 are sort of loosing energy, fight themselves, if you see what I mean.

Hi,

Two considerations and one question:

ET ratios can be infinite, we have said that, but... How many ET Pure-ratios can we tune (and sell) in our actual practice? I shall answer: one. This ratio seems to have some success today, it is pure-12ths.

How about having it as The ET standard reference...? After all, it is easy to check (both aurally or with an ETD) and it is "possible" to tune (meaning that it allows ET-progressive RBI's). Personally, I think it would be reasonable, practicable and realistic.

Isaac, I think you are right when you talk about Slightly Tempered Twelfth, that is what I prefer... Shall we call that STT and see if it... sounds better? :-)

The question (only for those who are familiar with small numbers):

How many pure_interval_ratios can be combined in pairs, and ruled so to provide an ET ratio?

23:23... one more heavy day tomorrow..:-)

Regards, a.c.
.

I agree, Alfredo. If a standard need be identified, that would be the best one.

Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos. It's also a more precise point than the typical 4th or 5th and located beyond the octave.

What's your small numbers question? It sounded interesting but I didn't understand what you were asking.

Would this be the 3:1 partial that's pure? What about 6:2 - would iH mean that there would be a beat on this one? Isn't a pure 12th just as impossible as a pure octave? I know TuneLab has a 3:1 mode and wonder if that will achieve this or not? It would be interesting if any ETD could do the 19th root of 3 - this gives 19 equal divisions of a perfect 12th - but the ratio is slightly different to the 12th root of 2 (1.059526 versus 1.059463) - this could be interesting as the ratio is very slightly larger.

Just curious.

Paul.

I strive to tune pure twelfth. I hear the 3:1, but never the 6:2. If tuning an octave I can often hear the 2:1, 4:2 and 6:3, especially with bass strings. But wound strings can be wacky, so I tune to both the 12th and the 8th by playing 3 notes. If I played just the 12th in the bass, maybe I would hear the 6:2.

But the so-and-so root of such-and-such just doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with iH. When the 3rd partial of the lower note is sharpened, due to iH, a pure twelfth will not have a 3 to 1 frequency relationship of the respective first partials. It will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH. (Can I hear an AMEN?)

The ratio seem to be describing the origin of the perceived resonant spot , as an "acoustical shape" .

The IH, at the piano is more or less "absorbed" depending of the amount of coincidence partials can be subjected too.

So when a model aim to a theoretical resonance between partials, the tone is purer.

About "pure 12th" it is not really 3:1 that acoustically pure 12th is not there, at 3:1 it sound too large yet.
That said tuning based on no audible beat at the 12th level are too enlarged to me, it is not necessary to go that far to have the benefit of the partial matching or not being far (that create crispness probably due to more immediate resonance between notes)

Building a temperament that tend to a pure 12th without sacrifying the tempering and the firmness of octaves was not easy.

Octaves are still important intervals, if they are just the result of a division of the 3:1 they have no value for themslves,

The iH of a given piano only can adbsorb a certain level of beating. Now whay do we want to do that ? the tone is warmer with tempered intervals. If it can be warm in some regions then crisp in others I am pleased.

The pure 3:1 have even more leeway than octaves in my opinion. I wonder if it sound too large due to the 6:2..

Hi,



..."I agree, Alfredo. If a standard need be identified, that would be the best one."...

I am glad we agree.

..."Pure 12ths gives a clear partial to tune to that achieves a near-ideal stretch on most pianos."...

Yes, ..."near-ideal..", again... we agree. The difference might be that it is not "...stretch", as if we were referring only to the octave, for me the ideal is stretch (or shape?) as referred to a Form.

..."It's also a more precise point than the typical 4th or 5th and located beyond the octave."...

What do you mean by "typical"? I though the typical "precise point" - in the "standard" context - were beatless octaves.

..."What's your small numbers question? It sounded interesting but I didn't understand what you were asking."...

Sorry, my problem, I'll try to sort it out.



Hi Jeff,

Recently you were mentioning Indulgent Mysteries, we were talking about smooth progressions at the break...

I see a reason that might solve that mystery, in the last quote here:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1351184/35.html

And yes, an "aural" pure (beatless) 12th... "..will be something greater than 3, and it will increase as you go up the scale, except for jumps in the scaling which means jumps in the generally logarithmic curve of iH."

AMEN. :-)

Now tell me, can you tune beatless 12ths?



Isaac,

I propose aural_beatless_12ths for two reasons: firstly, because it can be easily checked; secondly, because the piano will settle somewhere below that... do you know what I mean? :-)

Regards, a.c.

When you please your customers, repeatedly, THAT should be your "standard".

What I mean by typical 12ths vs. 4ths/5ths is the 12th - in my experience - is a narrower bandwidth on almost all pianos than 4ths and 5ths.

This leads to a narrower range of acceptability when tuning 12ths and may make it a better marker for stretch.

The standard model has meant beatless octaves in the past, but now most technicians - at least here in the NE United States - do not take the standard model to mean beatless octaves. Only that mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two - or the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps, which is true. Beyond that basic definition, tuning becomes a very complex thing.

I was finishing a tuning tonight with extra time to spare and I tried reinventing my temperament method. It was really interesting to me how it changed the way I heard what I was doing and made me reconsider everything that I think about tone and temperament.

It made me realize first, how terribly conditioned we are. Equal temperament is truly the temperament where nothing is really in tune. My ear wants to hear purer intervals than what ET will allow me to tune (in any form of stretch). I practiced tuning what my ear really wanted to hear to see how far off I would be from ET, and it was drastic.

I found myself wanting to hear pure 6ths. It is a very beautiful tone, especially with an inner 4th. What a thing of beauty we are missing every day with equal temperament.

Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it.

As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time.

Isaac,

I propose aural_beatless_12ths for two reasons: firstly, because it can be easily checked; secondly, because the piano will settle somewhere below that... do you know what I mean? :-)

Regards, a.c. [/quote]

Hi Alfredo, I begin to tune them directly in their settled position, due to the fact I appreciate working with fully tuned unisons. To go there I had to be trained to be conscious of the quality of the tone with the CHAS ratio tuned.

Then I try not to stay too strictly tuning it, just to provide more "harmonic tinkling" to the ears when the piano is played.

I believe I can stay under the level of bad tasting and nasal sounding of too uneven tempering, controlling much intervals, but I may be wrong. indeed.

The idea that the piano is " a large temperament in itself" is covering the piano own resonance, and the way tuners deal with it (how partials are put together).

For me there is no difference between a C2 a C3 a C4 as it would if the piano is having a moving tempering all along.

The specific justness of the enlarged tempering is magnificent, but miss contrast, it is "too nice" somewhere..

A 5ths in temperament zone, if large (or small) must be find in the treble with similar qualities.

the iH change along the scale allows only to do so up to a certain level, as it seem to me that the piano is a sort of self tempering instrument, it tend to get smoother by itself.

How could it be when all the tuning theory I have seen coming from USA is based on partial matches, octaves being specifically called by their matching names ?

The term "non beating" is probably a simplification, meaning the beats are under the level of being too present.

They even can be invisible when blended with the speed at which the sustain fade away.

Hi Gary,

Perhaps you meant to say ...your "standard".. customers!! :-)

I think that If your customers were to discover a tuning standard which is higher than yours they might decide to change their usual tuner. This is to say that if you please your customer + the standard you can refer to is objectively good... all the better?




Tunewerk, I acknowledge what you are saying, I am not sure of where that "...mathematically the piano is derived from the 12th root of two..." comes from, and ".. the general idea of the doubling of frequency every 12 steps...", is perhaps "general" but (apparently) not true. Perhaps it is not "...beyond" but because of "that basic definition..." that "...tuning becomes a very complex thing."?

As for the other things you say... let me help you... trying not to be vicious. :-)

You lament having to temper... but that is not only the ET case, that is the case for all scales where integer_ratio intervals are... tempered. The ET you mention is only the nth pseudo-solution, and it came after many other temperaments that had lost the 6th you are missing.

And you perfectly know, add a few notes and make your pure 6th become a 12th and... you would hear a desperate donkey singing.

..."Second, it came to me how damaging this idea of temperament and then stretch is. They are not separate concepts. The temperament should extend to the whole piano. Stretch is dictated by the instrument, not something imposed upon it."...

No way I can be sure I get what you mean, although I have re-read those lines many times. Perhaps you say that the octave needs to be stretched due to iH? That "stretch" is not "tempering"?

..."As much as I might be attracting vicious disagreement, I believe we are completely and hopelessly conditioned. To be 'in-tune' is just a question of what the listener prefers. Only one thing can be truly in tune at a time."

Yes, also "feeling safe", for example, might be a question of what the individual prefers, some may not care at all, many make sure they have locked the door.

Evviva le seste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDo8Iz8LzW4

Adding to the previous post, Tunewerk, at 3:53 you will hear a 3rd, if you listen to the tonic, but it may well be the 6th you talk about, if you consider the dominant.

To All, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v_niyjAs4

(Edit) In the link below it is at 2:57, perhaps even more enjoyable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpPQqOYlgC8
.

#2175760 - November 02, 2013 07:36 AM Re: Should There Be A Standard? [Re: alfredo capurso]



Tunewerk, perhaps the question is this: can you tune progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)?

Jeff, can you?

Yes. That's where I started.

Tuning becomes more complex after that.

I see, if I understand correctly, you can tune "progressive RBI's and (aural) beatless 12ths (aurally)".

That is fair enough, I am sure you will be able to prove that (with some recordings)?

Sure, I could do that Alfredo. Maybe at some point in the future.

To what end, though? To prove to you that I can tune? I don't see how that is meaningful at all. Especially not when you invite me with a passive-aggressive challenge.

You will have to take me at my word that I know what I am talking about. There is plenty of detail in my writing.

My position is that your 'perfect beats curves' idea is false. If you look closer, you will find all kinds of variation in the curves. A perfect curve is only possible with a perfect scale. There are no perfect scales.

I think you are a great tuner with great understanding, but I think you are wrong about some things. Egotistic challenges only slow the progress of collective understanding.