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

I'm going to go down as saying that I do not want a totally beatless octave. I want to hear movement in it. I believe that from a musical perspective that is something that the pianist can sense and work with. A totally beatless octave sounds dead...lifeless to me both as a tech AND as a musician.

I will consciously expand the octave to get as much movement as I think that piano can stand. Not a repeating beat, but a beat that starts but doesn't finish in the amount of time I estimate it is likely anyone is actually going to play that octave.

This is what my ear and musical sense requires.

Feel free to disagree. I just wanted to go ahead and answer my own question.

Pwg

Correct me if I am wrong but the differences I find between the calculated versus the measured iH for these 3 pianos in the partials of F3 and F4 are as follows:

iH(n) = B*[C(n)-1]

C(2) = 4
C(3) = 8.45
C(4) = 13.18
C(6) = 27.27




Differences between calculated vs measured partials range from -3.48 cents to +12.32 cents.

Am I right?

I like the math but I have to agree that what the piano says in the matter is what counts. I.e. we need to take real notes, real F3, F4, A3, A4, for example, and try to tune it as a pure 4:2/pure 6:3 on every piano we tune, and then get an idea of how many pianos make this possible. That's what I have done for about three years now. That's where I get my opinion that there are many pianos where this is aurally possible within 3% for the check intervals.

Peter's comments are the first comments that actually answer my OP. Why would someone want to purposely detune a beatless octave? Answer: to create a roll that adds life to the piano. That I can understand. Tuning an octave to match the sound of an out-of-tune fourth/fifth just doesn't make any sense to me. But maybe I'm just a lightweight in the world of great tuners.

But that's ok. Having a solid procedure that allows beginners to tune solid, but lifeless, tunings is ultimately more powerful than teaching a method that produces beating imprecise octaves that contribute to the whole piano sounding out of tune, which is the way I learned, and had to unlearn.

You have mixed up lower and upper inharmonicities.

Kees

I agree. Not that I like an impure octave but in real music there are so many beating intervals anyways that you can easily sneak in a small roll in the octaves without detrimental effects. This is why I like to tune my octaves on the narrow side on my harpsichord to improve M10 and M17, but this is particular to the kind of music I like to play.

On the piano there may be different motivations such as larger stretch and wider octaves. It really depends on what the player likes.

Kees

I disagree profoundly - but respectfully

Again I'll say, tuning solid octaves is a basic principle to a concert tuning- supposed to be on par to tuning solid unisons.

To purposefully- willy-nilly add randomly thought up beats to octaves is what I would call "chaotic", and is not according to any proven tuning standards I was trained in...Perhaps I'm ignorant of 21st century (new-age) tuning; completely possible.
Again, I note that we are talking mid-range piano here--- not upper octaves or extreme bass... This is our temperament!

Where these ideas have come from is beyond my ability to fathom.

The professional aural tuner has always founded themselves on solidity and purity-- not fluidity of beat ratios, opinions of which interval I like best, and imposing beats of my own calculations.
Is this the 21st century world of tuning?
I'll stick with my ignorant 20th century, thank you.

Agreed of course, and if theory disagreed we'd have to revise theory, but it seems theory is still mostly agreeing with reality here.

For example look at the data on the S&S Raphael posted here. With a pure 4:2 the 6:3 bps is 0.45, so if you slightly widen 4:2 to make them equal beating (as you advocate) they will beat at 0.23 which is probably aurally pure.

Kees

I would like to add another beautiful use of check intervals to tune precise octaves.

I have stated that the human ear's capability to hear beat speed differences is 3%, but when trying to tune a wide 4:2/narrow 6:3, we can decrease that window significantly.

Take your S&S example.

Suppose I were to come to that piano and tune the F3F4 octave, but hear it as a pure 4:2 and barely narrow 6:3. I hear the 6:3 as narrow because the M6 is more than 3% slower than the m3.

It is quite possible that, in order to tune the octave as a wide 4:2/narrow 6:3, that I raise the F4 and that I now hear the 4:2 as still pure, but the 6:3 has now become pure.

We can conclude that the 4:2 changed size, but is still beyond my 3% limit, so I didn't hear it change. However, the 6:3 did indeed change size from a narrow 6:3 to within the 3% limit of perception.

We could assume that this is a wide 4:2/narrow 6:3, but it is way more precise than we could have tuned just listening to the 4:2 or the 6:3. By listening to both the 4:2 and the 6:3 (using RBI tests) we have increased our precision greatly beyond the 3% limit.

Does this makes sense? I have some graphics that may explain better.

To add to the process of comparing octaves to other intervals, consider the multiple of the overtone that coincides with the octave that you are comparing. The more remote the interval, that is, the more you multiply by, the bigger the difference there is with a small variation in the pitch. So for instance, if you listen to the beat of the major third F to A, that will theoretically* be the same speed as the beat to the next higher A, as well as the next higher A, which is where the fifth (if I have that number right) overtone of the F coincides with the fundamental frequency of the A. That is, five times the frequency of that F is approximately that A, so that making those beats coincide requires the accuracy of the A to be much more accurate than just tuning to the A an octave below. In this case, a change in the frequency of 1 Hz in the top A would change the beat speed of the octave by 1 bps, while the change with that lower F would be 5 beats per second.

*or in actuality, depending on what you think the theory is.

Rick,

I thoroughly understand your viewpoint, and also appreciate your way of expressing it. Very nice! Let me explain some of what brought me to this viewpoint.

For years I felt exactly like you, but the first thing that got me started thinking differently was exposure to UTs through Owen Jorgensen (who I initially viewed as a NUT CASE!). However, my general open-mindedness and curiosity pushed me explore and to give it a try. I got the big book, read the background, was not yet convinced, but gave it a try. I had two nice uprights side by side in the shop, tuned one in ET as usual, then did my best at following his instructions for Thomas Young's 1799 WT "according to personal taste". Wasn't perfect, but not too bad.

Then I sat down to play...and it was basically an OMG moment. I remember thinking to myself as I was tuning it (WT)..."no way...there is no way anyone would accept noisy 5ths like this, some 3rds so slow as almost pure, some so fast they make your teeth grind...no way".

But...as I played I found that IN THE CONTEXT OF THE MUSIC, I didn't even notice it (unless I tried real hard to purposely notice it). Then of course I repeated the music in ET and found it so different (it was OK, but now it seemed to lack something)...back and forth WT...ET...WT...ET.

Then I started playing some of my own music (in WT) which tends toward the simpler keys (and therefore less dissonant than with many sharps and flats) and I started liking it more and more all the time, and liking ET less and less.

So, as time went by and I got better at tuning WT, I started offering it to certain clients who played exclusively pre-1850 repertoire. What I saw surprised me. It was the fact that these musicians (not only did they love it) they gravitated towards the more complicated keys with the fast beating RBI's (exactly the opposite of what I gravitated toward) but I would hear them "oohing and ahhing" over these sounds they had never heard before. At first I thought it was weird, but eventually realized that they were simply hearing things differently from me. They were hearing the MUSIC, not the piano per se (perhaps somewhat closer to the way it originally sounded). They liked it. So I eventually got to thinking...(always a dangerous thing).

The next step was Lucas Mason's book "The New Tuning" which we have all discussed in a different thread. My general open-mindedness made me check this out too. In this case I did not like what I heard when I tried his ideas...HOWEVER there is a chapter on psycho-acoustics that I thought was very interesting and had some food for thought. This was where I started thinking about expanding my octaves STARTING in the middle (which I previously had thought..."never"). I thought: "Hmmm, if my ear will tolerate WT 5ths and 4ths that would be considered HORRIBLE in ET, I wonder if I can tolerate wider octaves in ET (and everything else that goes along with that, as we all know) and would it sound good?". So I started experimenting.

What was interesting was that, not only did I like the sound of ET better this way (obviously when playing music specifically designed for ET) I started getting unsolicited positive comments from clients that their pianos sounded better. I wasn't influencing them in any way, simply playing with octave width, eventually finding a balance between too little and too much "stretch".

I eventually also learned that I could vary the "stretch" amount on certain pianos beyond what I would normally consider appropriate simply because the instrument "asked" me to do so to make it sound better. (NO, I AM NOT HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH PIANOS!) You know what I'm talking about.

Still, some pianos "talk" better with a conservative approach, but I try to let the piano tell me what it wants to satisfy both my technical ear and my musical ear. Like the Verituner, sometimes it takes a second try after getting more information to get it where I think it should be.

I recognize that not everyone will agree with this MO, but my musical background forces me to be open-minded about it. I don't get it right every single time but I keep trying till I think it is. If the client/artist agrees, BINGO!

This is a SHORT history of how I arrived here. I hope you can understand (but you're not required to agree).

Pwg

Glad to read that coming from a pro tech about UTs. I use my own UT since 1990.

An analogy is piano teachers listening to a live performance. Many of them have a hard time appreciating the music, because they can't turn off their "analysis mode" while listening. I can have the same problem as well when I hear pieces that I play differently from the person I hear.

Currently my UT of choice to ease people into it is Bill Bremmer's EBVT.

Incidentally, there is at least one brand of piano I can speak of specifically that I know I must tune close, pure, clean octaves. That is the Charles Walter studio upright. Also, EBVT sounds great on this piano too, depending on the type of music they play.

At least this is my opinion.

I'm interested in other's viewpoints on UT but I assume that would be another thread entirely.
May have already discussed and I don't know about it.

Pwg

Yes, it has been argued ad infinitum over the years. Mostly the opponents have agreed to disagree and kissed and made up.

Start a new thread though and stand back.

That's ok

What do you think about these octaves? The octaves start at 2.09

https://vimeo.com/ondemand/27507/115504806?autoplay=1

That was quite some testimony, Peter (plenty of passion)...
Almost ye persuade me to be a Theorist.

But, I'm not ready to be "open-minded". I know I used the phrase to express that I was keeping my mind open to Mark's ideas, but I try no to be "open-minded" for everything.
Mind really is just another word for spirit-- being open spirited technically means any spirit can wonder in--- (scary thought)-- the results can be devastating, and work irreversible damage!
Now, apply that to our profession, and you'll understand my approach to these ideas (it's just a lesser form - and can work the same sort of damage to my professional attitude).

I am glad for the story you tell, since it shows me your progressive approach and how it has led you to your current reasoning.

I do have a problem however with these attitudes toward theory and experiments, and what it has (and will) lead to--- I noticed something you said:


I hope I am misunderstanding-- but thie appears to come accross to me as an example of something that I've been talking about all along in these forum debates-- when speculations, and theories get out of hand, people begin thinking they can (must!- because the piano is asking them to) toy with the tuning on customers' pianos without approval!...
The profession I am apart of, requires me to stand up and protest such a thing---- again- IF this is what you mean... I'm not quite clear as to that being what you meant.

For one thing-- had they not liked your unkown experiment, wouldn't your reputation have pretty much been hurt?

But the more important point that I do think that our profession dictates that at the least we do the standard ET (with no funny manipulations)- unless the customer is educated about, and wishes otherwise. It would never even come into my head to experiment with a customer's tuning without their being aware of it!

These are the exact things I fear happening from people who allow theory to become "truth".
It happens (and has happened over the ages) in many other realms of life throughout the world- not just here.
And I stand on guard against it in my own life- not to let my own ideas carry me away.

AND, there was one more thing that I simply do not agree with---- this dea that the music can sound better, while the way the instrument sounds placed in an altogether different category.
Blame will be placed on the standard issue ET for the dull sound of the music (yet the great lack of offensive intervals), by the same people who say these things about the color-filled UT (or ET stretched octave, altered pure 5ths, etc).
The temperament IS the instrument's voice is it not?! Either the voice sounds good or it doesn't. Either it is in tune or it is not. If I have a interval that is a "wolf"- (or in some of these ideas multiple wolves)- the voice is cracking in the attempt to sing-- I.e. there's a fault(s)... While, IF I have a voice that is pretty much solid, and no offensiveness in any song sung-- I am sure to win the contest

Again- there are places for UT's - this is not my argument.

My fear here is that there is a great push to REDEFINE "tuning"... Traditional standards turned into chaotic opinions will destroy your profession. Just as sure as endless debates on theories and unproven (unprovable) ideas will only lead to devouring one another.

My thoughts on the matter. I think I'm done with these kind of debates.


It just strikes me in all of this (even more after this post- thank you Peter ) that the artists' emotions are getting in the way of the professional's reasoning of standard practices... Perhaps it is just me- as I am adverse to going on my emotional momentary experience (I am not a musical artist) rather than established truths (I am a firmly grounded realist- and a 'proven standards' torchbearer).

No contest there. I understand.

Pwg

I read your post with interest Rick. And I agree with your concern.

Let me tell you the story of how I got here.

When I started teaching tuning, I was challenged by trying to find descriptions to help people get good results. "Tune it so it sounds good" is pointless if the student has no idea what sounds good.

So I started to analyze my own tunings. I measured beat rates, calculated differences, and recorded intervals. I began to find a pattern that developed from my measuring of octaves that I tuned as pure as possible.

Note, I was not trying to find a new way to tune, only trying to quantify what I was already doing.

It is often the same arguement when it comes to music theory. The composers first wrote the music, and then the theorists write the theory about it. The composers didn't write the theory first and then compose.

So I hope you see that my interest in theory is to facilitate a student's learning curve, and not to redefine what a good tuning is.

Great post.

Rick,

I just re-read your post and I guess I should clarify a thing or two.

It would appear that I used a less-than-ideal expression when I wrote "simply playing with octave width"... I can see how you (and others) might see this as toying willy-nilly with clients pianos without their permission. IMO this is not what I do (or have done).

Since I also have a reasonably long musical background (50 years at this point), when I tune a piano, I KNOW (within 95% accuracy) if it sounds good or not. I have a pretty good understanding of ET, scaling issues, inharmonicity (although in an analog way rather than digital), I know what's "clean" and what isn't. However, I am not afraid to make adjustments in the tuning if my "musical ear" registers that my "technical ear" is not getting the job done to my satisfaction.

Now before someone starts to say: "But you are being paid to tune for the client...their interests come first...not your opinon...blah, blah, blah..."

I KNOW THAT! I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday!

But the fact is that the vast majority of our clients leave the decision making in OUR hands to make (or try to make) their piano sound the BEST IT CAN BE. If that requires (in my judgement) some deviation from what I was originally taught, I feel it is my responsibility to do that. No, I am not going to bring them over to the piano and explain in detail what "the book" says, and why their piano has one thing or another about it that causes me to do this or that and ask: "Can I please have your permission to do this?" No...what they want is for me to use my skill and experience to make their piano sound as good as possible. And that is what I do. I happen to know that 99% of the time IF I AM HAPPY with the result, they will be too.

I do not tune every instrument exactly the same. I will not tune the performance piano the same as the recording studio piano. I will not tune the chamber music piano the same as I will tune the jazz pianist's piano. I will not tune the spinet the same way as the glorious Steinway B. If ET is being tuned on all of these instruments, I will apply my skills to tune ET on each one, but there will be some differences. It is not a one-size-fits-all profession we are in, nor is it a matter of "obeying the law" vs. "dis-obeying the law". (How many of us have ever driven 55 or 60 mph in a 50 mph zone?) THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION!

Let's carry that illustration a little further... As we travel down a main road we have to our left a double yellow line (for instance), and on our right a white line. Between these markers is a certain amount of space in which we are allowed to drive (assuming we have a license and are not DUI). Generally speaking, travel anywhere in between these lines is permitted and appropriate. We are not required to rigidly adhere to X feet from the yellow line and Y feet from the white line. No, there is flexibility for obvious reasons. However, CROSSING either of these lines is going to have ramifications, and under normal circumstances we should not do it.

Similar with tuning. Certain parameters must be adhered to in tuning ET, however reality dictates that we also have a certain amount of flexibility within those parameters (boundaries) to make the "musical driving experience" safe and pleasant. I don't need a backseat or passenger seat driver second-guessing every single move I make while I'm driving. That will prove to be a trip I don't want to make again. If though, I'm acting recklessly, that's a different story.

I don't think you are actually accusing me of "driving recklessly", though there is a slight hint of that in your post. You can be assured that I stay within the proper bounds of accepted ET tuning practice. I am not "inventing" anything new, nor changing the rules or theories to fit any wacked out ideas of tuning. But if I read something or observe something (tuning related) that I hadn't been taught, or hadn't occurred to me, I'm usually willing to give it a try. Some of this I have accepted and use, some of it doesn't seem to work for me so I don't practice it.

Finally, one case in point. Just last week I had to tune a 60's Chickering (Aeolian) grand. Temperament section worked out surprisingly well (I say surprisingly because my experience tells me that similar pianos have problems in that area). Bass...not too bad...pretty much followed the rules. But as I got going past the tenor/treble break it quickly became apparent that if I left it TECHNICALLY correct (as some would define it), the treble was going to sound seriously flat (partly an IH issue and partly a soundboard condition issue. Therefore, (IMO) I was going to need to stretch octaves (as it turned out) ACTUALLY WIDER THAN I AM NORMALLY COMFORTABLE WITH. I tried one thing and I tried another and finally I said: "Okay, if this is what it wants (to be musical), this is what it's going to get". In the end it sounded quite good (for what it was), I was happy, owner was happy, piano was "happy". And I'll see it again in a few months and maybe I can do an even better job with it.

I am not even going to go into UT because that's a "whole 'nother ball game".

But I hope you will understand that I am not taking liberties and creating anything "new under the sun". Of course you are still free to disagree (of course without being disagreeable). :-)

Pwg

As someone who has been involved with administering the tuning exam for the Piano Technicians Guild for over 20 years I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that many tuners are not achieving great ET in their everyday work. The PTG tuning exam allows an accumulation of 13 errors in the midrange between C3 and B4. An error is defined as any note that deviates a cent or more from our master tuning. A note that deviates 2 cents or more is considered two errors, and a note that is 3 cents off is considered 3 errors.

Theoretically, adjusting C4 and A# upwards by 2.9 cents in the temperament octave will change an ET tuning to a well tuning by making the CE third and the A#-D third a little sweeter and the A#-C and F#-A# thirds a little more dissonant, yet if all the other notes are within tolerance a temperament such as this will score a 90%, which is considered a very good score.

I just think we need to be realistic about how precise actual practice is. And this is just the midrange area - the tolerance for the low bass and high treble is 6 cents, meaning you can be 5.9 cents sharp or flat and have the note count as "perfect".

Granted, that some feel the PTG exam is not picky enough, but when it was created Dr. Sanderson and Jim Coleman spent a lot of time studying and measuring the tunings of working professionals to create a baseline.

So yes, there is certainly leeway in what is considered a professional level tuning. The old tuners have always said that stability, unisons and octaves are the most important aspects of a tuning. As long as the temperament is somewhat even, it will be extremely unusual for a client to complain.