Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum CHAS PREPARATORY TUNING

Quite funny, Jeff. Thanks.

If possible, you could post similar stuff in this other Chas thread:

https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2076930/Re:_C.HA.S._Model_-_Climates_a.html

In fact, I started this thread 'cos I would like to help others gain my favorite tuning.

And you can still tune your favorite tuning and perhaps avoid weighing this thread with whatever comes into your head.

I would guess that the rabbit is you, why would you still be here?

Regards, a.c.

Hi Kees,

Thank you for sharing your opinion on Professor Haye Hinrichsen's paper.

If possible, please restore the original quote, I have never written lol above that link.

You wrote :... "This paper however does seem to support the idea that the optimal stretch should sacrifice the sacred octave in favor of the balanced 12th and 15th, and is not devoid of meaningful content."...

I agree, though I do not see "..balanced 12th and 15th.." mentioned in that paper.

..."..Nevertheless I have some doubts about their conclusion, which is that it will sound better to stretch the octave (in a no IH case), by an amount which is between pure 12ths (Stopper tuning) and CHAS (in-between 12th and 15th) but is close to CHAS."...

The amount of stretch, according to those figures, seems to be closer to pure 26ths than Chas (from my calculations).

..."..1) They assume the "entropy" which is a mathematical formula hypothesized to be relevant to human hearing should be minimal. It is not clear that this "entropy" is in fact doing that."...

I believe they got some encouraging feedback from the Entropy Piano Tuner.

..."..2) They model the piano as a set of fundamental frequencies, plus partials (n=2,3,4,..) which have energy that decreases exponentially with n, with a parameter called lambda which they guess. Clearly this does not cover most of the piano, for example in the tenor/bass, the fundamental is actually weaker than the partials."...

They were addressing non-iH tones, a piano is a different thing.

..."..3) When they compute and minimize the "entropy" using the partials of all notes, the solution is standard ET, with a perfect octave."...

Yes, we may also say that that result depends on one parameter.

..."..4) They then argue that the peaks in the Fourier spectrum (sharp peaks at the partials) should be replaced by wider peaks, widened by another parameter called sigma which is in cents. Then it is claimed that this is somehow related to the human frequency discrimination, which they set at the "realistic" value of 5 cents. This does not make much sense to me, as 0.5 cent difference is audible not directly, but as a change in beat rate of intervals."...

I remember that they changed some parameters, but the results were robust, meaning that they didn't change significantly.

..."..Finally they find values for the tweak parameters of their unrealistic piano sound model (lambda and sigma) such that the entropy minimum is no longer at the perfect octave. The value they find is larger than the CHAS ratio, but not by much."...

Hmm... One could believe that they tried to match those results with what they wanted. Nope, if I remember correctly, there was a change only on one parameter, what was it, beats or no-beats for the octave?

..."..Given the emphasis they place on making a connection with actual tuning practice, I cannot help thinking they looked for exactly those parameters that would allow them to derive the desired conclusion."...

Hmm... They said clearly (three times) that that research is on non-iH tones, and in fact they compared "raw" scale ratios. I am not that suspicious, in any case, you would be saying that that is a falsification.

..."..Nevertheless, it is an interesting article which does support the idea of stretching the octave beyond what is required if you buy their assumptions."...

What is there left then? One might buy their assumptions, others might buy your silly idea that Chas is crack-pottery, some others might get stuck, like Jeff.

lol

Regards, a.c.

G.R.I.M. - Università di Palermo (2009)
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

PRISTEM - Università Bocconi (2010)
Italiano - http://matematica.unibocconi.it/articoli/relazioni-armoniche-un-pianoforte
English version - http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/04/10/chas-prof-chiriano-english/

Università di Cagliari - Tesi di Laurea (2011)
http://www.luciocadeddu.com/tesi/Cannas_triennale.pdf

Haye Hinrichsen - University of Wurzburg - Revising the musical equal temperament (2015):
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbef/v38n1/1806-9126-rbef-38-01-S1806-11173812105.pdf

Here the full quote at Alfredo's request.

Kees

That's better, Kees. Thank you.

Hopefully this will enhance general understanding of the harmonically resonating tensorial fractal isomorphisms of your C.HA.S.®.

Kees

Actually, the "general understanding" of the Chas theory and practice is not a problem, Kees.

So far it has been understood by the piano makers Fazioli (Italy) and Paulello (France), by the developers of Pianoteq and Scala, by the authors and the revisers of the articles listed below and by Professor Guerino Mazzola, and it has already been understood by very many colleagues in Italy, in France and more recently in Canada.

And we all know our PianoWorld colleague Kent Swafford, who has developed some ET styles for Verituner, including Chas ET.

Professor Haye Hinrichsen describes Chas with few and simple words:

..."..the semitone ratio is defined by the implicit equation

(3 − ∆)^(1/19) = (4 + s∆)^(1/24)

with two construction-specific parameters s and ∆, where the special case of c.ha.s corresponds to setting s = 1."...

Now that I have understood what is wrong with Bernhard, the question might be how to enhance my understanding of what is wrong with you, today again.

Have a nice Sunday

Edit: I would have a suggestion, why don't you take it all out, once and for all, and perhaps we can sort this continuous poisoning of yours? If you like, you could post here: https://forum.pianoworld.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2076930/Re:_C.HA.S._Model_-_Climates_a.html
.
G.R.I.M. - Università di Palermo (2009)
http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

PRISTEM - Università Bocconi (2010)
Italiano - http://matematica.unibocconi.it/articoli/relazioni-armoniche-un-pianoforte
English version - http://www.pdf-archive.com/2013/04/10/chas-prof-chiriano-english/

Università di Cagliari - Tesi di Laurea (2011)
http://www.luciocadeddu.com/tesi/Cannas_triennale.pdf

Haye Hinrichsen - University of Wurzburg - Revising the musical equal temperament (2015):
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbef/v38n1/1806-9126-rbef-38-01-S1806-11173812105.pdf

I was in contact with Prof. G. Mazzola some years ago, where he mentioned that he has been contacted by you trying to elicit some confirmation of your Chas theory. His comment to me was: "I won´t touch this"



By the way, can you predict to what ET size a Chas temperament done by an ETD on the middle string would migrate when completing the unisons? If your theory about pitch sagging from cramping a pure twelfth ET in to a Chas ET by completing the unisons would be correct, the result would an inverted ET, with octaves smaller than pure...



are you sure? more later.

I read somewhere (maybe in that article by the school teacher "professor") that you have even bothered poor Benoit Mandelbrot with your stuff shortly before he passed away.

Chas was debunked by me and others years ago, but your strategy seems to be to wait and then start peddling it afresh for a new audience.

Please refrain from personal insults, even though it must be frustrating that you can't refute my (and other's) objections because you apparently can't understand them.

Kees

Kees, you wrote..."I read somewhere (maybe in that article by the school teacher "professor") that you have even bothered poor Benoit Mandelbrot with your stuff shortly before he passed away."...

Is it that detail that annoys you?

..."..Chas was debunked by me and others years ago, but your strategy seems to be to wait and then start peddling it afresh for a new audience."...

Yes, I do remember that a few posters, including you, here in PW decided to ridicule my sharing since the beginning, but so what? What has that to do with sharing my finding? I have no "strategy", sharing Chas, for me, is simply a pleasure.

..."..Please refrain from personal insults, even though it must be frustrating that you can't refute my (and other's) objections because you apparently can't understand them."...

Well, recently I could understand Bernhard's objections very well, and I hope I could clarify many points. I also understood Chris objections and I replied extensively on that too. To you, I believe I have already said all I could say, though you do not seem to understand that the Chas model is simply one of many ET representations.

Mind you, no insulting intended, but please be careful when you share your idea that Professor Haye Hinrichsen .."...looked for exactly those parameters that would allow them to derive the desired conclusion.". You see, that would be called "scientific misconduct", and perhaps you understand all the implications. If you want to act as a whistle-blower please go ahead and contact the institutions; otherwise please stop acting as a defamer.

Regards, a.c.
.

In my experience, pitch sagging happens. I tested it with the Verituner and TunicOnlyPure, witch gives btw very nice unisons. If you tune each string of an unison to the EDT, and they are all set to "zero", the resulting unison can be lower up to 1.2 cents. Mostly around d5 up to f6 it is most obvious.

Thanks, Jeff. I did say "'given' the few new piano trios....."..the classical world here exists outside the real world. I cannot enjoy many piano trios either. It is a very difficult art form with three illusionists. Where else do illusionists appear together? Part of my job is attending concerts so I know it can be done but rarely. You have to kiss a lot of frogs. Welcome to my briar patch, by the way.
My main question was about where some serious tuning rubber hits some serious toad. (That's my spellcheck guessing the context again). This afternoon I heard on the radio a German orchestra (Germany,where the piano tuners are trained to death and the singers allowed to sing out of tune if they do it loud enough). There was a beautifully in tune held woodwind chord spoiled by an orchestral piano arpeggio that finished horrendously sharp. The engineer clearly heard it and relegated it into the background which I think made it sound worse.
Well, I don't want anything like that happening in my briar patch and so I asked the question.
The broadcast in the original question happened and worked well but was a pre-curser of tonight's LSO /Rattle /Stravinsky concert. Double woodwind and Eb clarinet. Since the clarinet registers at the twelfth and all other woodwinds register at the octave, there is a parallel here but nobody seems to have picked up on it. Woodwinds officially have no inharmonicity but they do have idiosyncrasies that can resemble inharmonicity.

There was a comedy radio panel game here called simply; "Does the team think?"

So, having just tuned an orchestral piano, does the team think there should be any difference in tuning for a concerto piano out front and an orchestral piano situated between the harps and the woodwind?

Supplementary question,

Has the team any idea what the divil I'm talking about?

Does the piano need to be overstretched in preference to the imagined requirements of those in the cheap seats at the back or is it wiser to favour the very real pitch requirements of the finest musicians in the world surrounding the piano?

Does CHaS have any bearing on this particular reality?

Does reality lighten up the situation?

(One of the violinists goin on stage just saw me backstage waiting for the intermission and played minor thirds like an emergency vehicle and played them progressively flatter as he strolled by me with a broad grin on his face.). It's like monty python For musicians back here. The situation is always light..

This is the LSO. The finest orchestra in the world. I would include the Berlin but I just heard their "Planets "on the radio using a Wagner tuba ( a sort of baritone horn with a French horn mouthpiece instead of the more robust wide bore Bb tenor tuba (euphonium) that it was written for.

So it all worked as planned. After some serious hammering with the brass and xylophone, an arpeggio downward from a good unison with the picc in the 7th octave to another good unison with the cor anglais in the third octave proving what I have always said about tuning high notes using upward arpeggios only. If all music were written upwards, the pianist would finish up a few yards to the right of the piano.

This, of course is the root of the problem with any tuning that advocates excessive stretching.

What about a piano being used for a movie score that is with a symphony orchestra in one measure then with electronics in the next.

What does CHaS and his friends have to say about that?

There's a lot of misguided imaginings. This thing that string players tune in perfect fifths! They can't. Not the professionals, it's far too impractical. Don't t forget they have the same problem that we do. Exactly the same.

From 'cello C-G-D-A through to violin g-d-a-e, the cello C to violin e is Pythagorean. They have to temper. The studio musicians that I associated with daily temper their intervals more than we do. Of course they rarely play open strings but to have a string that is sharp in the first place limits flexibility of intonation.

And yet, and......Yet. there is an app for tuning violins in some kind of patented stretch. Look in your App Store now.
Not only that, they're asking some serious money for it!!! Who would possibly buy it???people learning the violin without a competent teacher???? A DIYer?? Just like a DIYer piano tuner might think that a designer tuning would solve all their problems.

It won't

Rant over.

Look at me

All covered in pitch.

No pun intended, either way

I wonder if your observation would stand up in a controlled experiment. After all, I tune d5 to f6 as well -- but _never_ observe "sagging" anywhere near 1.2 cents.

Hi Kent,

Good to see you here.

In my experience, the amount of sagging is never the same, that depends on the individual piano. Yes, I too think that some experimentation would be interesting, also taking into consideration different/small orders of magnitude.
.

Rxd, you wrote:

..."..There's a lot of misguided imaginings. This thing that string players tune in perfect fifths! They can't. Not the professionals, it's far too impractical. Don't t forget they have the same problem that we do. Exactly the same.

From 'cello C-G-D-A through to violin g-d-a-e, the cello C to violin e is Pythagorean. They have to temper. The studio musicians that I associated with daily temper their intervals more than we do. Of course they rarely play open strings but to have a string that is sharp in the first place limits flexibility of intonation."...

I tried to explain what you are saying above to a PW poster that named himself as Tunewerk. I was not successful.
.

Oh! dear, oh! dear, oh! dear, if we care to look back in these threads, we will find that it was you, Alfredo, who didn't understand the realities of the situation. I'm happy to learn that now, some 7-8 years later, that you are showing some glimmerings of a more gestalt understanding of this whole tuning situation.

I have a foot in both camps. The intensely practical side of the finest of music making and the often pretentious suppositions that lie elsewhere.

All the tuners in our team are not only encouraged to hear the results of their work in real life, we are actually paid to attend the concerts that we tune for whether there is an intermission tuning or not. The music profession in London has a vested interest in the training and, above all, education of its tuners unlike anywhere else in the world. It's teamwork. Supported by the piano manufacturer who of course, also has a vested interest and survival instinct. The tuner that tuned tonight's piano at two o'clock this afternoon, was not me, I was at a Rolls Royce owners gathering.

I have been accused of living in some kind of ivory tower but I've done my share of plastic elbows too.

Some 7-8 years ago, when I made the simple statement of truth that the treble of the piano, if tuned entirely 2:1 octaves was already sharper than any other musical instrument in common western use, it was painfully obvious by your usual questions that you had no inkling of what I was talking about. (It's all in the archives). Do you have a grasp of this aspect now?

You were not alone, you were polite about it. Others weren't. Thank you.

The piano is Primarily a musical instrument and is subject to the same illusions of other musical instruments. The 90 musicians last night would give short shrift to a tuner that blunders in there with their own imaginings of how they think it should be.

I have no pretensions to being some kind of sensitive genius, I merely have the combined experience passed on to me from the generations before me who, over the years, evolved to create this incredible team work that is what was heard all over the world last night. This experience I have found duplicated elsewhere in a different way.

In what way is being of service to the finest musicians in the world any different than reproducing that same service to budding musicians? At what point does the science behind the art get left behind so that the art has a life of its own?
(In reality, the science never gets left behind, it simply begins to deal with the parameters that always got left out of the equations, the open secrets, if you like).

I ask my questions of you in a Socratic way, knowing that you don't yet have the answers. After 7-8 years, (the length of the old apprenticeships), now you are ready to learn something more. We all are.

What you are doing is valuable. But will what goes on in the privacy of a living room between a tuner and their clients piano stand up to the audible glare of an international concert hall?

What is happening here is a refinement of your own idea of the same old suppositions and religiously held credos of the average piano tuner of limited experience.

In attempting to do so, you have opened up the subject to many others and, like me, opening yourself up to the brickbats of those who also now seem to be learning something. An invaluable service for which I thank you 😊 .

Thanks rXd for yours message
octaves it's "our's ALL"? Or if have any exception? What?
Mr. Stopper see it's right process when all gaps of an area = 5, but his octave is weak and bad for our ears

Amanda, I'll respond to you outside the brier patch.

I enjoyed your posts because of the odd over-lap between what you wrote and my past experience. I once was a trombonist for circus bands, a VERY humorous environment, but also very demanding for a 'bone player. But my main instrument was euphonium in marching and military bands.

You muse about how a piano should be tuned. Out of personal preference, I tune it to sound best with itself, which I believe is very close to pure 12ths. The piano is considered the King of Instruments. Should a King bow to the will of fickle commoners?

That's entirely correct, Max. Octaves and unisons are the same. An octave should sound like a unison. As immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. This will point out any errors in the temperament.

Except. That's so easy to say about large pianos where the vagaries of string winding are not so noticeable. Nevertheless,
Octaves should sound as much like a unison as possible taking care that the intervals inside the octave don't suffer.
In extreme cases I set the temperament a fifth or even an octave lower.

But we've done that to 💀 in other threads.

Later.

Thank you very much
It may sound strange. But for me it was fundamentally important to hear such an exhaustive and at the same time a short answer exactly from you
Thanks again.
We look forward to hearing from you answer an testing about the test through the lower octave
regards, Max