Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Octave Sizes

This is utter nonsense. Pitch standards in the 18th century varied from A4=390Hz to A4=450Hz and this has nothing whatsoever to do with "improved tension designs".

Kees

I don't recall every speaking against UTs.
I understand their place and use.

Actually what I was talking about was theoretical claims about bringing back the glorious "colors" and the emotional experiences that the composers were trying to express--- and saying that they cannot be experienced in ET, and must be experienced in some form of Meantone or Well...Yet not considering at all, when one makes such claims, that they are not reproducing any such color on our modern instruments... The way it sounded would have been completely different on such instruments as they had then. I mean, come on, the strings have changed, plate was introduced, action technological advancements all came into play with the piano since those days.
One might like the thought that they are hearing it precisely as it was meant to be by Bach or Beethoven--- but not the case.

I was also, referencing other discussions, earlier, about pure 5th theories and other such ideas...And now here, are we going to be sacrificing octaves?...
And, really I get it--- theories are all fine to have- have them-- but when people publicly insinuate that others are ignorant, or less profession, because of they disagree with or even disprove the theory- one is overstepping their place and can expect hard feelings to begin brewing toward them.

Again, IF customers want/need UTs- this was not my point-- of course you do what they need or want. UTs have their place.

Rick,

No offense meant.

Usually when I hear about UTs, they are referred to as HTs.

As for historical playing, Bach's "The Well Tuned Clavier" certain seems to call for a well tuning. It also seems to call for a clavier

Though a modern piano is not a fortepiano, a harpsichord, or a clavicord, a modern piano still another keyboard instrument capable of taking a well tuning.

Edit: I do agree, though. A truly historical performance should be done on instruments of the period.

Greetings,
I don't know that Beethoven "should" be played on a well-temperament. I do know that it has a different sound in ET than in WT, but there is no way to say which is the way it "should" be heard. I have seen a lot of pianists encounter WT for the first time, and it is not uncommon for an epiphany to arise. I have often observed that his music has more emotional engagement when it is performed on a WT instead of a ET, but that is not a universal thing. The music, itself, is more harmonically complex when performed on an unequal temperament, primarily and secondarily, as there are far more harmonic relationships with a staggered series of thirds, and there is a profound introduction of texture. A bug for some, a feature for others.
Marshal McCluhan stated that "Meaning is a product of a message being received, it is not a unique quality of the message". Since the change in interval size is registered primarily in the sensual realm, how it is perceived is as subjective as individuals' sensibilities. For some listeners, regularity is important, for others, it is anathema.
Regards,

Two of the best aural tuners I've heard are very concerned with the fourth. David Anderson seems to have a sense of what he wants to hear, and says that when you get it, the fourths will have a similar sound over most of the piano, He's written about this in the Journal, about 10 years ago.
Another tuner I've had a chance to observe spends a careful time adjusting A4-E4-D4-A3. It's not just the octaves, it's all combinations of those notes. The thirds progress when he's done, as do the tenths, but the slow beating intervals seem more structural. He says "You can do the theoretical tests on my tunings, and they measure pretty good, but that's not how I get there," [I hope to learn more from this person, and maybe write about his approach. The result is probably close to a Perfect 12th tuning.]
I don't know the right answer. but I do know that sometimes a piano can sound so good, the whole piano can resonate wonderfully, not just with a big sound, but with a beautiful voice for playing music, and that seems to be where to look for the answers.

I'm looking for that as well.

So far I get good results by spending a lot of time on A3A4. Using checks, the precision is much higher than just tuning the octave without checks. I also choose the size depending on the Inharmonicity. I use a method of tuning a pure 4:2 and measuring the 6:3. Sometimes it's pure. Sometimes it's narrow, very narrow, or even wide. I've found some empirical sizes that sound really good within a small window, so I use them and don't want to or need to change their size. But I'm still trying to figure out why someone would want to make an octave sound not as good. The size of the octave for me sets up the stretch with pure 11/12/19/22/pure 8:6 P4. If I start messing with the octave, these larger intervals suffer.

I ask because I'm always looking for better ways to tune.

You have been given half a dozen or more answers to your question.

All of them talk about the need of compromising. Compromising the "purity of A3A4" to gain in other important aspects of piano tuning, but you seem to not want to accept their validity.

In that sense you are disqualifying us and dismissing us all as piano tuners.

All of us, who have answered your question, have given our reasons and arguments to support our point of view.

Can you tell us the reasons you have to ignore all the facts and considerations we have exposed and you cling to favor a unique isolated octave in the middle of the keyboard? Why not F3F4? Or C4C5? Or whatever other octave in the keyboard?

P.S. Question: no one person among the posters here have seconded you, doesn't this tell you something?

Are you saying you can tune a piano with pure 11th, 12th, 19th, 22nd and 8:6 4ths? That all of these intervals are aurally beatless?

That's FANTASTIC! Meaning it must be a fantasy.

I used to start with A4 and then tune D4 first, so it sounds best to me. Then I tune A3 to D4 as I prefer it. I now listen to the resulting octave A3 - A4. If it pleases me, I put in E4. Sometimes it needs minor corrections, mostly it is okay. So the octave is established.

YES!

There is much to be said for forming the octaves with other intervals and using the octave as a check. Octaves can be awfully deceiving. You can think because it sounds good, that it must be best. Also when expanding a lopsided temperament, you may not notice corrections that can be made. But by tuning other intervals first, either when setting the temperament, or when expanding it, much more can be understood about the relationships of ALL intervals on THAT piano. 4ths and 5ths, I think, are the best intervals for such work because they are the ones that are closest to being pure.

Exact. All this is due to inharmonicity.

Each partial has its own individual iH and it may be lower or higher than expected. We can not know in advance where a specific partial is located. It is until we hear an interval that uses this partial that we can know where it is and how it sounds and how it lines with the other tuned notes. For example when tuning an octave we are hearing at partials 6, 4 and 2 of the lower note but we have no idea of where partials 5 and 3 are, these partials will define how the third and the fifth above will sound, if these notes are already tuned we can have a nice octave but a bad third or a bad fifth so the octave may need to be tweaked to have a better third or fifth.

In fact we do this all the time when expanding up and down the temperament: we tune the note as a pure souding octave then we hear at the fifth and adjust, then at the fourth and adjust, then at the tenth etc...

The octave A3A4 is not different from the others in that respect, so it must be checked and adjusted in the same way, hearing at the fith, fourth, etc...

Rafael,
You are demonstrating now, repeatedly a rude behavior that is going to get others rather angry with you...It's fine to disagree with people, even be sarcastic at times-- but you seem to want to continually insinuate that others (who happen to not agree with you) are either not professional or ignorant. A very bad approach as a professional.


As far as no one chiming in for Mark on his point-- I thought I had when I mentioned the sacrificing of octaves question... I do not at all support anyone sacrificing a "beatless" octave--- and I'm not going to stop calling it what it has been called for a long time simply because you do not like the term, or think it should be termed according to theory.

And, when you say that Mark is "disqualifying" you and "dismissing" you-- he did no such thing... He simply questions your reasoning, and does not take them at face value. I call that intelligent.
He has not once questioned your professionalism or knowledge, that I've seen.

Mark,
I'm not qualified to participate in this thread, but as an aside I would like a thought of mine clarified.

The Railsback curve as shown on my ETD appears to be straight across A3-A4. However that is not the case as illustrated in the attached graphic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_acoustics#The_Railsback_curve

So then, if inharmonicity exists in A3-A4, and is assymetrical, why would adjusting A3-A4 not be beneficial to producing a better tuning?

Ian

Rick, yeah, even I agree that Rafael crossed a line by being high-handed. It is "playing the man instead of the ball." I see he edited his post.

I think Rafael sees the tuners in this world as part of a somewhat heroic fellowship with an unwritten code requiring us to aspire to be worthy of all the greatest challenges of tuning. If this was the case, we would agree on certain basic tenants about tuning. I am sure it is frustrating for Rafael that this is not the case.

Myself, I find it frustrating when it is impossible to communicate when the verbiage used muddles a discussion. I sure am glad that is not happening in this Topic.

I think an answer to this might be to ask another question:

Is the aural tuner doing anything different than what you guys are suggesting with the tuning process?... I mean, we all have our checks as we set temp and go about tuning...
NOW-- the octave must be beatless- and yes, Rafael (Gadzar) is absolutely correct in that there is a small space to play with there in the area of what is referred to as "beatless" (to toy with the other intervals before one perceives a beat in the octave)...

I don't know, but perhaps our debate here is one of perception vs machine math? BUT- if not--
IF it is a matter of a perceived beat being introduced into the temperament octave in order to fix one of the other (already beating) interval-- well then, I think that is against all basic approach to change the octave THAT MUCH!

*Was looking for a quote from an author on tuning...But, for some reason cannot find it--- she was asked what the difference was between a regular fine tuning and a concert tuning, they said her reply was simple-- "Octaves and Unisons".
I think the discussions have already been covered many times on this forum, that SOLID ("Beatless") Octaves cannot be sacrificed and it be considered possible to come away with an acceptable situation.

What is perceived is different than theoretical math produced by the machine-- if the math of an unperceivable space for adjustment is what is being debated here, I want to drop out-because there is no end to such an argument.
Since, you cannot prove something that is not perceptible
That must simply require faith in the unseen by the person arguing it.

He edited his last post, not the one I'm speaking of (on page 1 at the bottom)... Anyway, that doesn't matter, I don't expect an edit. I think Mark, and those on our side of the argument, can cope without that LOL... Besides, we all speak out of line at times- I was just trying to point out it is unfair and puts the other person in the spot of either having to defend themselves, or not answering at all (a very irritating situation- and frustrates open discussion).

And I think it would benefit all to remember that we all are ignorant of something in this field- let's face that fact, and continue our learning... Professionals can be ignorant (not that I am saying anyone here is)...
Not knowing, and seeking the answer, is perhaps one of the most humbling aspects to being a Pro.

BUT- all that said, I think that Mark and I are right. LOL

I am done, this will be my last post in this thread.


An octave can not be tuned beatless!

Nobody can deny the existence of several pairs of partials beating in the octave, nor the fact that they beat all at different rates, there is no way to tune them all beatless. This is not the way i see it, this is not my opinion, this is a fact. A fact that has been proved. A fact that has been and can be measured.

So, octaves should be tempered. A3A4 is an octave exactly the same as any other octave in the piano and there is no reason to treat it differently. It must be tuned to fit in the sequence of all other octaves and its size must fit in a balanced compromise with all other intervals in the tuning.

Rick,

Before blaming me, you should make a little search on PW to find out how Mark has treated me in the past.

If you want to think that octaves cannot be tuned beatless, go ahead. Personally, I think that is an excuse for not learning how to tune octaves properly. Octaves can usually be tuned beatless, and with extra checks, they can be tuned better than that.

BDB, I am interested. Can you explain what you mean by "better than beatless"? Especially since you mention "with extra checks." I would like to know what they are, please.

Regards,

"Analize"?

I think this must be a Freudian slip particularly common to piano techs!