Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum temperaments and tuning - why it matters for pianists

the chord of c major: la corde de do majeur
bring into agreement: mettre en accord
tune a piano: accorder un piano

And you're right that there's no allusion to beating.


Paul (in Montreal)

You need to familiarize yourself with what the difference betwen accuracy and resolution is Ed, because your statement indicates you are not fully aware...and your statement is absolutely incorrect unless accompanied by a test/calibration certificate at the moment you say wrote it. Which Software/hardware ETD company provides a specification sheet based on any standard of testing which clearly indicates what its absolute accuracy is using standard accepted testing procedures? NONE OF THEM.

The accuracy/repeatability of your micrometer is based on numerous physical characteristics of it which may or may not exist at time of its manufacture, will absolutely degrade over time, or go out of calibration with use. The original pitch consistancy on the micrometers thread, uneven wear from use within a specific measuring zone, the amount of axial, radial and thrust play on the thread, the trueness of the anvil faces at all rotaitional intervals, the surface finish on the anvil faces, and temperature during use are all factors which will determine its accuracy compared to, or measured against a lab grade gage block or CMM machine capable of measuring it. On top of this the actual pressure on the rotating thimble and its consistancey will vary with actual use by people handling it. Even ratchet and friction thimbles on micrometers which are designed to minimize the inconsistancies of pressure, have their own amount of inconsistancey relavent to the overall accuracy of the measurement. I spent many years calibrating high end equipment in industry...even writing specifications for manufactured equipment. Learn what "speckmanship" is, because near every electronic equipment being sold has a tremendous amount of it applied to its actual specifications these days. I can easily make a product with lesser accuracy than its competitors appear to be more accurate to the average consumer who is not intimately aware of the testing standards, math, physics involved. Millions of audio speakers have been sold to the public with higher wattage specs (and lower price) than their competitors, when in reality the opposite was true...they know the average public just sees a number and have no idea what "continuos average, RMS, and per channel" means.
Here is a simple test. Go on line and use your google fu to the best of your capabilities to bring me any documentation whatsoever that clearly states what the absolute tested accuracy of any software/hardware based ETD is. You will be hard pressed to find it when you go looking for it. You will find tidbits of information in marketing/user manuals etc...but not any actual specifications listings.
Better yet, do what I did with actual ETD's. Plug it in, use NIST, and carefully observe with your eyes what you see when you go adjusting and calibrating. Although the second decimal place is resolved on the dials...it does not consistantly repeat an on stable readings for most ETD's. Worse yet, use a highly accurate signal generator that is calibrated to 3rd decimal place accuracy and adjust it to fully stabilize an ETD reading....move its offset by .01 or .02 cents, and most ETDs will still show it stabilized and will not offset in accordance with it. This indicates internal coding/algorythyms which give the impression of locking on to a measurement. That is how I know that they are not as accurate as their resolution indicates. It is a real test...not reliance on what you think, have read, or have been told by slick marketers.

Aside from this, piano strings are not nearly as stable as an NIST tone. They fluctuate far beyond 2 decimal place (cents) accuracy most of the time. Worse yet, the end effect that non ET tuners claim often has to do with the interaction of upper partials/harmonies. iH on piano strings are far more inconsistant than even .1 cents..even on exact same models of pianos. There is absolutely no guarantee that a tuner following offsets instructions on a temperament will ever get the same full effect with these subtleties, or even near it, as the original piano and temperament author did.

I did not denigrate anyone Ed, I did not bring Rons character into question, nor question his intent. I am simply bringing up the point that I do not see the practical reasoning behind indicating a .17 cent deviation on a target, when strings will often fluctuate more than this amount, iH will fluctuate unpredictably more than this amount, ETD's cannot reliably and repeatedly copy or target this amount. Like I said before, when I calibrate RCT, its software takes a series of 6 readings on the stable calibration tone. Each one individually is shown up to +/- .06 cents off....it averages all the readings and comes up with a calibration offset. This is using top of the line hardware, solid state net book, no fan interferance etc... The other devices are no different. If it was accurate to single digit, 2 decimal place (cents) and could reliably repeat it...there would be no averaging involved...it would lock on to the tone an "viola".

(Added) Years ago I worked on the design and manufacturing of a high end digital bathroom weigh scale for a company. The strain gages they used had an accuracy of +/- 2% on its readings throughout the full range. This meant that a 200 lb man could actually be measured on it as 196lbs or 204lbs , or anything in between. They put a code into the reader which would take any previous reading within that 2% error and simply repeat it. It ran on a 3 minute timer. They did this because the scale had a resolution of 1/10 of a pound. They know people in the store will step on to the scale, measure themselves, step off, and then back on again and compare the readings. So someone who shows 196.5 lbs remeasures themself and the scale shows the same number...they think its accurate and think its repeatable to that indicated 1 decimal place resolution. Yet if they picked up a 1.5lb object in their hand on the second measurement...it would still show the same number as the first. All is not what it seems with digital measurements/software and what is real accuracy.

Greetings,
1. Courtesy of the U.S. Navy, I think I am intimately familiar with tolerance, accuracy,and resolution concepts,(when amplifying acoustic signals by the orders of magnitude we did, tolerances of any size become important). I will say that I know my micrometer has changed .0002" since I bought it in 1976. I have been measuring the same small wrench that came with it over the years, and I don't think that steel is dimensionally unstable. In any event, the analogy holds, and doesn't require burning a straw man to understand.

2. The reason for .17 cent deviation being listed is that that is the theoretical ideal. It is the point from which any individual technician can allow their own personal slop to take them to what they consider their own standard. If you think it can be ignored because humans can't hear it, why stop there? Why not toss any degree of resolution that is below the human threshold to discern? It is going to be amplified by the cumulative nature of octaves, so is the extra cent at the extreme of the keyboards meaningless, also? Where do you stop compromising? Are you arguing that accuracy is improved by coarser measurement? Or tuning speed is increased with less accuracy in the numbers defining our ideal?

I have seen techs that constantly argue for a move toward mediocrity, and others that pursue increasing the accuracy of our work wherever possible, even to the last .2 cents. Take your pick.
Regards,

[/b]Ed, no strawmen created for my arguement about accuracy. I just pointed out that the [b]resolution on a micrometer (just like on an ETD) has absolutely nothing to do with its actual precision/accuracy. I've logged hundreds of mikes for ISO calibration over the years and charted their deviations using CMM, Grade 00 ceramic gage blocks, and most importantly, optical parallels. Never had one come in at under .0001" across its entire measuring range in 6o degree rotational indexes. Why do you think that we, and thousands of other companies spent thousands of dollars sending finished machined parts to temperature controlled CMM rooms after they were made, parts that were manufactured, checked and rechecked by trained machinists on the floor with high grade micrometers (temp compensation even taken into account)?

My point about small decimal place cents deviations on temperament charts really has to do with compounded errors ending up on a copied temperament by another tech. All reproduced on a different piano with different iH than the original, increasing error even more. We all use the same typical range of ETD's and with that alone, the errors can double (temperament authors, then the reproduction).If a small deviation under 1/3 cent which an aural tuner won't pick up on while listening to a single interval is claimed to make a difference on a piece of music, there is more going on with psychological anticipation and preconcieved notions than actual noticable changes in the end product IMHO. Yes, this does tend to support the arguement that a sloppy haphazard ET, may well reproduce a noticable change that closely aproximates an UT reproduced by this error laden, copy cat process.

Its a difficult sell on experienced ET tuners, when they need to be convinced that a neophyte who blows an ET by +/- a couple cents may have his work looked on more favourably than a well executed ET...simply because its different, or even more sadly, because somebody slaps their name to it as its creator. Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid and by the looks of it, neither are the majority of the tuners out there.

For the rest of the folks reading, I guess I'll close with that old saying "People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It" Attributed to any number of sources...

Techs are finding positive responses from those that actually play the piano. That tuning other than ET has value in how it helps them connect to the music. That the responses have been able to be repeated around the world using electronic tuning devices brings it into the internet age, where it is easily available to more musicians and piano owners. Using visual representations via www.rollingball.com allows the owner/performer to be an active participant in the process.

Ask your tech if they are able to tune a temperament that respects the tonality of western music, or if they are limited in their practice to only offer equal temperament...

Ron Koval

UTs are much, much easier to tune aurally than an approximate ET. As a pianist who tunes his own piano, clavichords and the other keyboard instruments, if it weren't for my wife's incessant need for transposition, I would leave my piano in a strong UT.

When tuned it to Young 1799, it relaxes, enjoys life, and makes wonderful music.

prout

JH, as you found out, it's impossible to start a thread here about temperament without the usual ET vs non-ET debate/war and the "That's what I do/think, therefore others don't make much sense" kind of answers. I guess since temperament is a matter of taste, disagreements about this subject can't be objectively resolved.

About Ron Koval's temperament, I could be wrong but I suppose his initial temperament was his Well and that he then "reduced" it to also offer softer versions (I could be wrong though - I'll let him reply if he wants).

That's what I personally did, even though the background is completely different (I'm not a pro tuner). I created a well temperament on my digital piano some decades ago, then had to "reduce" it when I could finally buy a baby grand much later.

Well Ron, I hope your assumptions about a UT's worth are more accurate than your guesses at my ability to replicate an UT the same way as any other person with an ETD and professional tuning experience...because I've been there and done that....numerous times.

Unfortunately, when I ask for critique on UT's from people who are not aware anything was changed...my typical response is "I don't notice anything different" or at best "it sounds a bit unfamiliar". However, when I use the power of suggestion and reveal to them beforehand I used a temperament that deviates from ET, suddenly the opinions come out that they like it or they don't.

There are hundreds of examples of research proving how the power of suggestion influences people on decisions, critique, products they prefer, memory tasks, how they respond to medicine (placebo effect) etc.. The term "response expectancy" has actually been coined by psychologists to explain how once we anticipate a specific outcome will occur, our subsequent thoughts and behaviors will actually help to bring that outcome to fruition. Criminal lineups for example are no longer conducted by LEO's who actually know who the suspect is because its proven that the rate of false identification is significantly higher in these instances.

I won't beat what people here are calling a dead horse anymore. Maybe someone should conduct a poll using comparative ET/UT tunings on pieces with no indication of which is which and have the public decide. I'm pretty sure if you put up 2 recordings of the same ET tuning and suggested to people one of them was a mild UT, you would get a really high number of people making a differentiation and guessing which is which. This type of testing has been done across numerous fields of study and shows that all people are susceptable to suggestion to varying degrees.

Why should I care what the general public thinks about the temperament I choose? I play for myself and for others. I know what temperament sounds appropriate to me for a given piece of music. If some of the listeners also hear it, great - if most of the audience doesn't hear it or care, why should I care what they think? They still show up.

Maybe you know what temperament is right for you, or maybe your under the influence of other peoples suggestions. One thing for sure, around here its hard to escape those suggestions continuosly spewing from the same few UT proponents.

-If you play Bach, Mozart and Beethoven maybe a Well temperament is apropriate for your piano, at their time pianos were tuned in such temperament.

-Then tune it in a Well temperament, I want to give it a try.

-Done.

-Oh! It sounds nice! How is it done?

-The fifths are of different sizes, some selected fifths are narrower than others allowing some major thirds to be more harmonious. The most used keys in Bach, Mozart and Beethoven's music are more harmonious.

-I see.

Next appointment:

-You know? It bothers me that the fifths are not all the same size. This time I want my piano tuned in ET.

-As you wish... Done!

-But, it sounds harsh! What did you do to my piano?

-I just tuned it in ET. Do you hear? All the fifths sound the same. All the thirds sound the same. Do you hear them? There is no difference between C major and C# major! That's ET.

-Yes, I hear... Can you retune it in Well temperament?

-Oh yes! Volontiers! I'll charge you another tuning fee, is it ok?

-Yes, go ahead!

-Done.

-Ah! What a difference! Now it sounds ok!

-Now listen to CE and to F#A# major thirds. Do you hear the difference?

-Yes. F#A# sounds harsh, CE sounds harmonious.

-That's Well temperament.

-Oh, it doesn't matter, leave it that way!

Finally, someone who gets UTs. Thanks Gadzar. Welcome to the UT camp.

Greetings,
I, also, have had the same scenario numerous times. I find many customers unaware that there were different ways of temperament, yet, once exposed to the alternatives, find a distaste for ET. Others not, but the majority never look back. I am in this for the money, that is why I tune pianos,(plus, I really like the job satisfaction I get from working with professional musicians). I am interested in the market, and how I groom my clientele. To that end, customers that have found UT to be an asset don't look for other tuners because they can't get what they want from an ET-only tech. Job security.....I just can't find any down side to this.

Not to brag, but rather to encourage the younger generation of tuners: I tune most of the pianos for non-recording studio use in WT's of one strength or another. Doing so, I have been able to command the highest price for my tuning work in this state for the last 30 years. I give the major credit to my teachers, David Betts and Bill Garlick, for setting me and other NBSS students out on our careers so well equipped. In the pre ETD days, the ET temperament we learned from these masters totally blew the competition away. Perhaps that is why Dr. Sanderson used their standards as a beginning point in his development of the SAT.

I would be happy to compare my tunings, in any temperament, with any tech. Let's just tune a couple of practice rooms and come back the next week to see how they stood up to practical use.
Regards,

Hi ED,

The whole issue is much clearer now, and I want to say thank you for being so frank.

My (should I say 'Also my'?) feeling is that you move on the threshold of plagiarism, affecting the response you want (which is not illegal nor uncommon in business - perhaps admirable).

In order to achieve this, in the end, you do not even need to tune and offer your customers two (very) different tunings (right?). As you yourself have noticed, it is enough to play with the right intention and... all will become clear to the listener.

Tunerjoe has very well explained the value (and meaning) of small (and ever-smaller) numerical deviations: indeed, numbers and E(x)TDs can easily be used in this manner. But who cares, you/we (perhaps like you) could make a business, you/we are enabled to dintinguish your/our expertize, you/we can guess (and conclude - for free) how Mozart would have 'heard' intervals, how composers, say from Italy up to the north of Europe, would have had their instruments tuned. Yeah, let's be realistic (read convincing), who could ever deny that tail with absolute certainty? In few words, we can say what music is about.

And what is it, in the end? It is (about) personal preference (Lol). Yes, they finally have a preference, come'n give them a preference together with a good tuner (ETs, WTs, who cares) that can finally put in prose what they... have/need/want to spend for.

Oh, looking for an absolution?.. No problem, ego te absolvo.

Regards, a.c.
.

Don't worry Alfredo, I stopped taking you seriously years ago.

Kees

That sounds true, parallel to your understanding of tuning.

Regards, a.c.
.

Originally Posted By Ed Foote

"Greetings,
I, also, have had the same scenario numerous times. I find many customers unaware that there were different ways of temperament, yet, once exposed to the alternatives, find a distaste for ET. Others not, but the majority never look back. I am in this for the money, that is why I tune pianos,(plus, I really like the job satisfaction I get from working with professional musicians). I am interested in the market, and how I groom my clientele. To that end, customers that have found UT to be an asset don't look for other tuners because they can't get what they want from an ET-only tech. Job security.....I just can't find any down side to this.

Not to brag, but rather to encourage the younger generation of tuners: I tune most of the pianos for non-recording studio use in WT's of one strength or another. Doing so, I have been able to command the highest price for my tuning work in this state for the last 30 years. I give the major credit to my teachers, David Betts and Bill Garlick, for setting me and other NBSS students out on our careers so well equipped. In the pre ETD days, the ET temperament we learned from these masters totally blew the competition away. Perhaps that is why Dr. Sanderson used their standards as a beginning point in his development of the SAT.

I would be happy to compare my tunings, in any temperament, with any tech. Let's just tune a couple of practice rooms and come back the next week to see how they stood up to practical use.
Regards,"


Hi ED,

The whole issue is much clearer now, and I want to say thank you for being so frank.

My (should I say 'Also my'?) feeling is that you move on the threshold of plagiarism, affecting the response you want (which is not illegal nor uncommon in business - perhaps admirable).

In order to achieve this, in the end, you do not even need to tune and offer your customers two (very) different tunings (right?). As you yourself have noticed, it is enough to play with the right intention and... all will become clear to the listener.

Tunerjoe has very well explained the value (and meaning) of small (and ever-smaller) numerical deviations: indeed, numbers and E(x)TDs can easily be used in this manner. But who cares, you/we (perhaps like you) could make a business, you/we are enabled to dintinguish your/our expertize, you/we can guess (and conclude - for free) how Mozart would have 'heard' intervals, how composers, say from Italy up to the north of Europe, would have had their instruments tuned. Yeah, let's be realistic (read convincing), who could ever deny that tail with absolute certainty? In few words, we can say what music is about.

And what is it, in the end? It is (about) personal preference (Lol). Yes, they finally have a preference, come'n give them a preference together with a good tuner (ETs, WTs, who cares) that can finally put in prose what they... have/need/want to spend for.

Oh, looking for an absolution?.. No problem, ego te absolvo.

Regards, a.c.
.

Years ago on the "My piano in EBVT" thread there were some attempts at "blind tests" presenting recordings in ET vs EBVT made on the same piano, performed by a machine.

My conclusion from that (very long) thread was that people could not reliably differentiate between the two from the recordings in blind tests. However if they knew which were ET and which were EBVT they claimed the difference was obvious (better or worse, depending on the person).

This does not mean that you can't tell the difference if you are actually sitting at the piano and play it.

I put my piano in Werckmeister 3 (a 1/4' well temperament) last month. Things like the D#minor fugue from WTC1 take on a whole different character. Artists like Ton Koopman like it, so who am I to disagree? I keep thinking I hit wrong notes, but they are just Pythagorean thirds. 1/6' WT's sound just right for me for this kind of music. ET is a bit too bland. Anything weaker (like those "Victorian" temperaments) is too subtle for me to tell the difference.

No doubt there are people more sensitive than I am.

Kees

As a performer, I prefer strong UTs precisely because they are clearly heard as having nice and not-so-nice M3s. Werckmeister 3 is great for the fabulous pre-baroque and baroque organ repertoire. A sixth comma UT provides much colour and a bit more range in key distance. I must stick with an approximate ET for modern repertoire and transposition.

I doubt I could hear, in a blind test using a piano or harpsichord, a mild UT as opposed to an approximate ET, unless I was at the instrument playing it.

"...sensitive.."? Hmm... I am not sure, I tend to believe that has to do with "musical ear" and "intonation".

Below you can listen to a 1/6 comma meantone (so the author says), have a go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfK3blfKE04

To All, have a lovely Sunday.
.