 |
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments.
Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
|
|
34 members (benkeys, Burkhard, fullerphoto, Erinmarriott, David Boyce, 20/20 Vision, Animisha, beeboss, Cominut, brennbaer, 3 invisible),
1,329
guests, and
278
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667
2000 Post Club Member
|
OP
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667 |
Jeff,
Thanks for your "nose". ;)
Your post is largely in agreement with the others; perhaps not all that much salt is required.
In my tuning, I have come to a point lately where I don't trust my ears as naively as I used to. I do lots of testing and refining. In the process, I am also confronted with exceptions to what I thought were rules. I get to discover, by learning more, how little I know.
The one rule that still appears to hold as well as ever, is that "hindsight is the only exact science".
Autodidact interested in piano technology.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.
1977 "Ortega" 8' + 8' harpsichord (Rainer Schütze, Heidelberg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425 |
[quote=Mark R.] .....
The one rule that still appears to hold as well as ever, is that "hindsight is the only exact science".
[/quote]
Yes. Something that I noticed when helping my kids study math is how some operations can only be truly done in reverse. Like 6-4 = 2. but the only way to truly know that is by adding 4+2 = 6. Factoring polynomials really points this out... For many things our minds can only take a guess and then evaluate the results.
Last edited by UnrightTooner; 09/02/14 12:38 PM.
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563
6000 Post Club Member
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563 |
[quote=UnrightTooner] Yes. Something that I noticed when helping my kids study math is how some operations can only be truly done in reverse. Like 6-4 = 2. but the only way to truly know that is by adding 4+2 = 6. Factoring polynomials really points this out... For many things our minds can only take a guess and then evaluate the results.[/quote]
I love these kind of philosophical posts coming from nowhere and going to nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425 |
[quote=Hakki][quote=UnrightTooner] Yes. Something that I noticed when helping my kids study math is how some operations can only be truly done in reverse. Like 6-4 = 2. but the only way to truly know that is by adding 4+2 = 6. Factoring polynomials really points this out... For many things our minds can only take a guess and then evaluate the results.[/quote]
I love these kind of philosophical posts coming from nowhere and going to nowhere. [/quote]
There is a point and you are missing it.
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563 |
No I am not missing it. I am just saying that I love these kind of philosophical posts instead of straightforward ones.
Just say what you want to say in plain simple words.
After all you are not expected to be a best selling intellectual novelist, are you?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,087
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,087 |
I am ready and willing to adopt these narrow than typical octaves on small pianos but I just tuned another one. 4:2+ no problem. Interestingly, it tested out as a 2:1 as well. I'm not surprised. I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
I recorded them and hope to do some measuring.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563 |
[quote=Mark Cerisano, RPT]I am ready and willing to adopt these narrow than typical octaves on small pianos but I just tuned another one. 4:2+ no problem. Interestingly, it tested out as a 2:1 as well. I'm not surprised. I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
I recorded them and hope to do some measuring.[/quote]
Some confusing thoughts here!!
It is worst when someone is so undecided about what to do!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667 |
Hakki wrote to Jeff:
"Just say what you want to say in plain simple words.
After all you are not expected to be a best selling intellectual novelist, are you?"
To which I respond, as opening poster:
Jeff doesn't always make immediate sense to me either. But I have learnt many things from him, and often-times the best learning was not from plain, simple words. I'm referring to approaches such as maieutics. So, if Jeff wants to be philosophical, let him be! (At least let him be in my thread, please.)
Autodidact interested in piano technology.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.
1977 "Ortega" 8' + 8' harpsichord (Rainer Schütze, Heidelberg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563 |
[quote=Mark R.]Hakki wrote to Jeff:
"Just say what you want to say in plain simple words.
After all you are not expected to be a best selling intellectual novelist, are you?"
To which I respond, as opening poster:
Jeff doesn't always make immediate sense to me either. But I have learnt many things from him, and often-times the best learning was not from plain, simple words. I'm referring to approaches such as maieutics. So, if Jeff wants to be philosophical, let him be! (At least let him be in my thread, please.)[/quote]
Fair enough!! Sorry!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,087
3000 Post Club Member
|
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,087 |
[quote=Hakki][quote=Mark Cerisano, RPT]I am ready and willing to adopt these narrow than typical octaves on small pianos but I just tuned another one. 4:2+ no problem. Interestingly, it tested out as a 2:1 as well. I'm not surprised. I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
I recorded them and hope to do some measuring.[/quote]
Some confusing thoughts here!!
It is worst when someone is so undecided about what to do!! [/quote]
Don't worry Hakki. You'll figure it out soon.
Last edited by Mark Cerisano, RPT; 09/02/14 05:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,563 |
I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
Seen?? One generally hears whether an octave is 4:2 or 6:3. Partials are partials, let us just be realistic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,571 |
Just to chime in for a moment about the width of the initial octaves... One piano I tune regularly is a certain Jasper Kimball. This thing is something. When I tune the A4-A3 octave with the Verituner, the octave beats wildly. It doesn't just roll... it: TWANG TWANG TWANG! Just a mess. The only way to tune this octave is by ear. It needs to be tuned much narrower than the VT wants it. Oddly enough, the other octaves seem to not have this problem. I've tried cycling through all the different styles discussed on the VT forum. I've tried using different octave types as well. They are all too wide. Some instruments respond well to the theoretical approach; some don't. Some pianos will give you the best result by using the octave type approach. Some will repsond better if you just listen to the octave in its totality without over-analyzing. Some pianos's unisons will respond best to listening to the various partials. Some will repspond better by listening to the sum total of the unison. It really does almost require a shift in consciousness or perspective or something to go back and forth between these two approaches. Then, there are false beats. There can be other junk and distortions in the note as well on these small pianos. We can tune an octave that is theoretically correct, but sounds bad. Everything is open to compromise except A4 in most circumstances. Then, that compromise should be compensated for by retempering as necessary. Every tuning is a custom tuning for that unique piano. Every piano really is just a great big puzzle to be solved  THANKS, just excellent ! regards +1
Amanda Reckonwith
Concert & Recording tuner-tech, London, England.
"in theory, practice and theory are the same thing. In practice, they're not." - Lawrence P. 'Yogi' Berra.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230
9000 Post Club Member
|
|
9000 Post Club Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9,230 |
May be OT (?)
[video:youtube]WMlqUYB_D3w[/video]
Last edited by Olek; 09/02/14 06:46 PM.
Professional of the profession.
Foo Foo specialist
I wish to add some kind and sensitive phrase but nothing comes to mind.!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131
1000 Post Club Member
|
|
1000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,131 |
I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
Seen?? One generally hears whether an octave is 4:2 or 6:3. Partials are partials, let us just be realistic. So Hakki, which one is easiest to hear?
PTG Associate
AIO Regular Member
ASCAP
Pipe Organ Builder
Chief Instrument Technician, Director, Chancel Arts
Church Music Professional
AA Music Arts 2001, BM Organ, Choral 2005
Baldwin F 1960 (146256)
Zuckermann Flemish Single
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,758
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
LOL. If one uses an ETD then one can see in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 2,515 |
I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
Seen?? One generally hears whether an octave is 4:2 or 6:3. Partials are partials, let us just be realistic. Obviously Mark used the word "seen" as an equivalent to "observed". Nothing personal, but it seems that Hakki is both stalking Mark C. and trolling. (Look up the meaning of "stalking" and "trolling" if you want to dispute this.) I am ok just putting him on my ignore list but he has developed a technique to derail just about any thread on tuning. Just my opinion, and I will forward this post to the moderators and will trust they take appropriate action. Kees
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425 |
No I am not missing it. I am just saying that I love these kind of philosophical posts instead of straightforward ones.
Just say what you want to say in plain simple words.
After all you are not expected to be a best selling intellectual novelist, are you? Oh, then I missed something. You were being sarcastic. Rudeness often confuses me.
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425 |
I am ready and willing to adopt these narrow than typical octaves on small pianos but I just tuned another one. 4:2+ no problem. Interestingly, it tested out as a 2:1 as well. I'm not surprised. I've seen octaves test out as wide 6:3 and concurrently narrow 4:2.
I recorded them and hope to do some measuring. I expect when a 6:3 is wide and a 4:2 is narrow there is a wild partial on a wound string. But it can also happen when the iH of the upper note is 3 or more times the value of the lower note. This might happen with the lowest unwound string and a string and octave lower on a very small, poorly scaled piano. "I see!" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. 
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667
2000 Post Club Member
|
|
OP
2000 Post Club Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,667 |
Jeff, I've thought some more about this-here part... Something that I noticed when helping my kids study math is how some operations can only be truly done in reverse. Like 6-4 = 2. but the only way to truly know that is by adding 4+2 = 6. Factoring polynomials really points this out... For many things our minds can only take a guess and then evaluate the results. ... and I agree only up to a point. Guess-and-evaluate does have its place (e.g. approximation in numerical methods), but not in polynomial factorization or simple subtraction. Once equipped with the right tools and methods (e.g., for factorization, identifying the highest common factor, dividing out, re-grouping, etc.), those operations can actually be done positively forward, not only retrospectively or in reverse. It's just a question of getting to know the tools, and practising, in order to know when to use which tool or method. (Of course, therein lies part of the rub for this thread, because up to a point, the same goes for tuning. So my comment about hindsight being the only exact science was intended to be more self-ironic than fundamentally true...) But in a certain sense, you're quite right. It's only after bumping heads with that console, and asking the questions here, that the picture started falling into place.
Autodidact interested in piano technology.
1970 44" Ibach, daily music maker.
1977 "Ortega" 8' + 8' harpsichord (Rainer Schütze, Heidelberg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425
6000 Post Club Member
|
|
6000 Post Club Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 6,425 |
Mark:
I had been thinking that I did not give a very good example of what I mean. Determining the square root of a number (with paper and pencil, of course) is really trial and error while determining the square is straight forward.
I think this is germane to tuning, especially setting a temperament. Determining if a temperament is ET is straight forward, determining where the error(s) lie is not.
There are many sequences, but what do you do when something is amiss? Does it always help to just work backwards to find the error? Regardless of the sequence, there can always be those small, imperceptible errors that might accumulate. The error can be everywhere!
And then there is the scaling to deal with, which is the real subject of this Topic. Is there a straight forward (aural) way to determine how jumps in iH will effect the beatrates? Nope! Ya gotta just try something and see how it turns out. When you get done and the 4ths, 5ths and 8ths are good, but there is a jump in the RBIs at a scaling point, THEN you know how the iH jumps affect the tuning.
Jeff Deutschle
Part-Time Tuner
Who taught the first chicken how to peck?
|
|
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,385
Posts3,349,183
Members111,631
| |
Most Online15,252
Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
