Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum An aural and visual demonstration of the Skeleton.

Unisons must be clean. In any other method other than open unison, the tuner can leave the unisons not clean. In open unison you have a longer time with them to find the drifters.

Also, for beginners, if they are not close to clean, the beats will be very difficult to hear. They are forced to work on unisons before the other stuff; front loading.

With the mute strip, you can leave unisons unstable and not clean, but you'll get call backs; back loading.

"Exactly, inherent motivation" meant, if you want to hear the temperament you need solid unisons. Just like you said. However, with rolling unisons, RBI can still be heard. But the P4 ladder must increase slightly and evenly in colour in ET, and that will not be easy to hear if the unisons roll. The P4 ladder is my last test. I consider it the most sensitive test for ET.

"My suggestion is to separate out the topic of practicing unisons from the topic of skeleton interval setting, i.e., not mixing the two." - The two weren't mixed intentionally. The video was about the skeleton, the DSU was just the way it was tuned. It can be done any way. I agree with you though; maybe I should make another video using the mute strip.

Here are my comments concerning the unisons:

C#4 at :39 seconds - this was before the tuning. Piano wasn't tuned. I was just showing the notes.

F3 at 1:11 - distortion.

1:55 - Those are some pretty slow rolls. Many tuners tune unisons like that. But rolling is acceptable when setting RBI, (carrier wave) not when checking octave directly. The test is, when the octave is in the window, there should be no rolling. If there is, it's coming from a unison.

2:47 - (FYI, don't take the numbers literally) - This was a visual demonstration of how the relationships work, not an aural demonstration; I hadn't tuned the C#4 or F4 yet.

3:23 - C# had not been tuned yet. At this point I began the "fitting".

3:44 - At 3:33 I set C#4 based on the previous judgement, but the speeds came out as Fast/Fast/Pure; criteria for lowering C#4.

"When exactly is it precise in the sequence you are demonstrating?" 6:34. Accuracy is dependant on how close F3A3 is to the final setting. But you can reiterate, like I did. I set F3A3 way off on purpose, to show how it works even when F3 is not good.

3:51 - Ya, that could have been better, but I did tweak it before I moved on.

4:06 - the goal is NOT 8bps, that was an arbitrary number used for illustration. The goal is smoothly changing beat speeds. At 3:55, the beats test out as Fast/Slow/Slow; NOT evenly changing. This test proves C#4 is flat. Because of where F3 was set, the goal, at this point, looks to be Fast/Med/Slow. (And since I tuned F3 flat on purpose, this F/M/S progression would be expected.)

5:27 Yes, I hear that.

8:17 to 8:28 - Yes, this seems to be a contradiction. But I still maintain it is beneficial for beginners. Just for them to get less than 1bps is a challenge, and >1bps makes hearing RBI from those kind of unisons impossible.

I will modify my claim to be "Double String Unison method requires close unisons (<1bps) when testing RBI, and clean unisons when expecting clean octaves."

I hope that helps.

I am open to creating another video using the mute strip if you think that would be more accessible.

This is my weakness, producing content that is accessible. I know that. That is the main reason why I post them on PW. Self-promotion is a much smaller part of it than it used to be. I don't get much business from PW, but what I do get, which is incredibly more valuable, are posts like yours.

Thank you again.

I like it. It's different than Bill Bremmer's method which is single string based. When you have to raise a string a bit on a single string you sort of "work in the dark", esp. when the beats are not so clear, but with the DSU technique you can calibrate you in(or de-)crements better.

Polite, constructive criticism: It seems the video could be condensed into 1/3 time. So the students would have to spend 2/3 less time listening, but you'd have to spend 50 times longer making and editing the video. Counter argument: if the students hear your "too long" video they get insight into what you are thinking when making the video. Matter of teaching style.

Don't say "it's a method I've developed", say it's a tuning method that I've refined.

You assume octave checks are known. (OK but depending on context.)

Around 3:00 "AC# is always 8 so it's precise" makes no sense.

Around 5:20 unclear what's going on.

Same at 6:30.

7:30 "extra time to do this.." do what?

8:15 digression to DSU, off topic.

9:00 off topic bisecting stuff

Cosmetic: put some screen up so we don't see all the junk in your garage in the background, it looks "unprofessional".

Kees

Thanks Kees.

I knew most of that stuff but really needed to be told it from someone else. Excellent points, every one.

Mark Cerisano, RPT, the videos are improving, but I still agree with DoelKees re:video editing and length. Also, forget about "fancy" transitions.

Perhaps you might first decide what you want to convey and then break it down into segments. Record each segment multiple times until you get your point across in a meaningful way that can be edited together. If you try to do a script, it will probably get boring, but if you do multiple takes, you should start to notice redundancies and unnecessary speech patterns.

re: unprofessional garage junk
This was one of the first things that caught my eye. If you were to put up a clean/blank screen, then I think my eye would be more draw to the dirtiness/disgustingness of your piano. <-----that you really SHOULD clean-up!! I would suggest keeping the rest of the room as is--it is your natural environment that you apparently feel comfortable in, so use that to your advantage--instead consider addressing the issue with better lighting control. If you are going to make videos, you really need better lighting anyway. I'd go for a few led panels with adjustable temperatures, barn doors, and a way to diffuse the light. Light up yourself and your area, not the clutter in the background. The video will start to look like it has a better resolution with appropriate lighting. A better microphone is needed, and then a nicer camera with a wider lens so that you can record more appropriately in that small space.

The method is inaccurate and this should be stated in the video, saying that it can be used for setting rough approximate M3rds. Sorry I really can't say contiguous, but some M3rds increasing in speed.

It should also be noted in the video that other accurate methods for setting contiguous M3rds should be used for fine tuning.

What other accurate methods. Please explain.

Chris Storch and Gadzar have already tried to guide you.

Look at their posts above.

Herr Weiss~~ thank you for your kind words! It's a very long work-in-progress that takes interminable amounts of patience.

Mark,
Look forward to your cleaned up videos and clean unisons. It seems that if you are emphasizing how clean unisons need / should be, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it by making them as perfect as you can at every step. As well, modeling the behaviors you want to teach gives your students confidence in you on so many levels. Glad others were willing to give you specific and tangible suggestions.

If you are still going to do a video on your way of using Contiguous Thirds, maybe do one using single strings, then duplicate the video using your DSU style. Learning/keeping really solid fundamentals early on carry over into developing a larger, more sophisticated skill-set.

Glad to see you are open-minded with your evolving educational website development.

Glen

Not me! Since 2006 I have not made a single customer in PW.

When I came first to this forum, I signed as GADZAR. No name, no profession, no link to my web site. My only interest here was, and still is, to learn from others and share my knowledge with others. Then I have read this post on the Piano Forum:

Piano Industry Pros - READ THIS by Piano World

I will cite some points of this post:




That's why I added my profession and a link to my web site, but I have never made selfpromotion!


Now, I ask you to see the threads Mark Cerisano has created this last days:


An aural and visual demonstration of the Skeleton.


Use Audacity to SEE, HEAR, and MEASURE beats.


Using a tuneable audio filter to help you hear beats


Beginners, see how good you are at tuning A4 aurally.


Try my quiz on narrow, wide and pure intervals.


For students - a lesson on how to hear beats easier


That's only for the first page displayed in my computer screen...

Add to these all the posts where Mark disqualifies what others do to then say he has a better way to do it. See the example below:

Re:For students - a lesson on how to hear beats easier

Here he says:



As always he tries to invalidate what others do and to selfpromote himself.

And worst of all: he's wrong in what he says to beginners who do not even notice the errors he makes!

F3A3 beats at A5 not A6.

The student was asking where to hear the beats at. He asked specifically if he must hear at 880 hz, and if this was A6.



880 hz is A5

not A6 as Mark answered to the student. He made the same error in his video of the Tuneable filter, I wonder if in fact he thinks F3A3 beats are to be heard at A6 instead of A5?


BTW: Students?

Yes! I guess that is how Mark sees the posters in PW. Like potential students for his courses.



Who? Which posts? Where? Isn't it the posts of his students, in his web site?

They are not more accurate. Sorry. You did not read my posts after.

I know no more accurate sequence than the Sanderson-Baldassin sequence, tuning the CM3s as indicated by Bill Bremmer. In this sequence there are no guesses and no arbitrary beat rates, it follows strictly the "let the piano tell you" approach of Stebbins.

Of course it requires a good sensitivity of the different beat rates in major thirds and fourths.

But I don't know a sequence that can produce accuracy without having that sensitivity.

Your lower skeleton and upper skeleton are not other than setting the contiguous major thirds from F3 to A4, just as in all CM3s sequences. And your lower skeleton is not accurate enough as we can see in your video when, after tuning the lower skeleton, you had to tweak C#4 to have even M3s in the upper skeleton.

What gives the accuracy in such a sequence is the correct appreciation and sensitivity to tune an even geometical progression of major thirds.

But an even progression of CM3s is not enough to ET. You must have also good fourths. This is the strongest point of the Sanderson-Baldassin sequence. It ensures also the correct tempering of the fourths. It lets the piano tell you the correct size of M3s and P4s.

I've never been one to argue about tuning sequences--I've never understood why people do that. They are all different ways of hearing something. When I come across a different different sequence--especially when it exercises a different listening skill--I play with it for awhile and learn to hear it THAT way.

They all are accurate, if one learns what to listen for. Why not take the time to learn a different way of listening/thinking? You will be a better tuner for it.

While you are at it, please learn to listen THOROUGH less-than-perfect unisons. That, above all else, will make you a better tuner. When two tuners can tune simultaneously on the same piano, with earplugs in, and a radio in the background, you are "listening" in the right way. <---obviously, this is more of a pitch-raise situation.

The C#4 was not accurate after the first attempt due to how far off I tuned F3 initially. I said that already. But it was easy to hear once F3 was closer. Baldessin's and Bremmer's methods are succeptable to the same weakness.

CM3 are not as accurate as bisecting the two lower CM3; F3A3 < F3D4 < A3C#4 for example, but generally more accurate than some methods used for the other notes. The White Anchor (F3 G3 A3 C4 D4) for example can have cancelling errors in the P4's from A3 to F3.

Setting RBI to bisect windows, instead of just putting the note somewhere between speeds is an extremely accurate method.

A good ET will exhibit a gradual increase in colour of the P4's from F3A#3 to C4F4. This is a good final test.

You need to prove that by a proper unedited video.
Until then, well you know...

C#4 was not accurate enough! Your lower skeleton serves only as a way to make a rough approximation. Just as any other method you can imagine. But you say this is a more accurate way of tuning CM3s and you do not prove it. Bisection comes after and you have not said what it is.

When you corrected C#4 in your video, you were only judging the even progression of M3s in the upper skeleton. That's what gives you the right tuning for C#4 not the lower skeleton.

PS When you post your method here, you are talking to experienced tuners who know well, maybe better than you, what you are talking about. We are not like your students who know very little or nothing about tuning and who will accept all you say without questioning it.

Just a HINT:

Forget about that 11,8,5 or 10,8,6 thing and this time begin with something close to 7 and try to stay close to 4:5 ratio onwards.

Get what?

That you speak of a superior DSU technique and you make a video where all unisons are rolling?

That you speak of a more accurate way of tuning C#4 with your lower skeleton, but in your video you have to retune it later by the usual even beat rate progression of M3s procedure?

And I'll speak for myself (Bill Bremmer, Isaac Oleg, Kent Swafford, and other experienced tuners here can speak for themselves, but I doubt they waste their time...): Yes, I am an experienced tuner. I tune pianos for a living. I use the sequences I've mentioned in this thread for tuning pianos, every day.

And when I see in this forum an RPT talking about a more accurate sequence to tune the CM3s, I am interested. But your method is deceiving, it is no more accurate than what I've studied for years. It works indeed. It works fine, but it is not more accurate that the others, as you claim!

Your behavior is all but professional as it would be expected from an RPT.

Look at yourself:



So when I advise you to use ghost tones to teach your students to hear beats you say they don't work!

But, what about this earlier post of yours in another thread (highlights are mine):




So, do ghost tones work or not?

Ah! I see: if Mark Cerisano says it, then they work. But, if this is another tech that says it, then they do not work and Mark has a better way to do this!


And I can continue to show how you say something in one post and then you say the contrary in another one, to invalidate what another person says, like the story about the student you taught to tune pianos in 20 hours to a level of passing the PTG exam.


What is true in all of your posts?

The only truth I see is that you like to despise others.

Do you think that makes you look superior?

Mark Cerisano,

Why are you deleting your posts?

Piano World keeps records of all posts.

It is useless to delete or edit them!

What I don't understand about Mr Cerisano is that in one hand he asks for respect from the tuning community ("be nice") BUT in his site 'How to tune pianos'- Archived (under- current-state-of-piano-tuning)- there is a blog titled I've been banned.

In it he writes and I quote: "I've even been insulted and harassed by another technician who claims to be an expert teacher and spends most of his time bashing people who don't agree with his ideas".

We all know who is referring to AND this is unacceptable!!
This is a form of defamation called libel.
I strongly advice that the best thing to do is to delete such a false, totally subjective statement.


Herr Weiss