Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Stoppers temperament

sorry, double post

Either way, a piano is either in tune, or out of tune. Whether mean tone, ET tuning, Well Tempered, Stopper tuning or what have you, if the unison's are not correct, the piano is out of tune with either tuning regardless of said tuning.

I discount the Stopper tuning in that regard for this reason. The fact that if you listen to most notes played in the center section, comparing them to most notes played in the upper register, in particular, the utmost highest register, the upper register is actually quite flat of the mid section and, many unison's are out of tune as well.

Now, maybe this is the way this particular tuning is designed to be. This, I do not know. But, I was trained that, either a piano is in tune, or it's not. Which is it? In this case, it is not. Don't take it wrong, I'm not being sarcastic...

That's what I'm pointing out.

Jerry, are you talking about the Bosen, and The D or the Everett? An everett spinet could have so many false beasts and strings out of phase that really it is unfair to complain about that.

For the sake of a true test, a strip muted piano would be better.

All 3 Keith. Of course, the Everett sounded the worst.

I'm a math student.

Though I'm not an expert in math or physics, I suspect that there's a little fuzziness going on here.

First of all, as you mentioned, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle really only applies to material on the quantum level (we can sometimes try to apply quantum mechanics to the real world, but any conclusions we might draw are very negligible). So I'm just as stumped as you are - I have absolutely no idea what this could have to do with piano tuning.


I once read a book called Fractals in Music by Charles Madden. There was quite a bit of discussion on self-similarity, which he describes using the concept of "Cauchy sequence". To illustrate, consider hooking a video camera up to your TV, where the TV displays whatever the camera captures (have you ever done this before?). What if I point the camera toward the TV itself? We can see the TV within a TV, and a TV within that TV; the "sequence" will go on forever, but we will see that eventually, the TV's get arbitrarily close together, almost to the point where the distance between them will vanish. If we were to zoom in further, we will still observe the same configuration. Perhaps this same effect can be seen when you view a mirror with a mirror.

So, Madden talks about how the harmonic series forms a Cauchy sequence. We can see this by examining the series for A-55: 55Hz, 110, 165, 220, 275, 330, etc... If we look at the ratios between a term and its preceding, they are: 2, 1.5, 1.333333..., 1.25, and so on. If we continue, we adjacent terms will get closer and closer to each other (and, actually, this sequence will converge to 1) - we say that this sequence in particular is indeed Cauchy. Given this, we might conclude that the harmonic series is self-similar.

The actual excerpt involves talk of "Fractal Symmetry" and tuning in "higher dimensions". Fractals are very peculiar objects that exhibit self-similarity, a type of symmetry. It could be that "Fractal Symmetry" really means self-similarity. More clarification is needed. And, again, the talk of "higher dimensions" could perhaps refer to techniques in modeling the vibrations of a string, for instance, by using ideas from Linear Algebra to find a (possibly infinite dimensional) vector space to do it. But, this is such a vague statement, and really needs more clarification.

My personal opinion of those excerpts is that they are written to make it appear that there is something very deep (and perhaps intimidating) about this method. So, I wouldn't take it very seriously.

Please let me know if I could perhaps provide more clarification on some of these ideas, or if you have any comments.

-Matt

His statement about the uncertainty principle was made in reference to his tuning device having to take a longer time to determine the note placement, not the actual note placement. It seems to be an explanation of why his device isn't as fast or something.
You are right, it has nothing to do with tuning but the actual physics involved in reading sound waves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that is true, it just appears like that is what he is talking about.

Ah well. If people wish to trash the recordings, that's fine.

Here is a description of the recordings, so you will know exactly what it is you are trashing -- or appreciating.

I offer an audio recording of a Steinway D and a Bösendorfer Imperial tuned together with Stopper's software. By the way, PureTuner tunes the notes of the scale down to C0, so all 97 of the Bösendorfer's notes can be tuned directly by PureTuner.

I have uploaded an audio file to:

http://www.kentswafford.com/mp3/d_dorf.mp3

My recording attempts to show that each piano is well-tuned with itself and that the pianos also are tuned together quite well. The Steinway plays first and should be on the right. The pianos are side by side. In the recording you hear Steinway arpeggios, then Bösendorfer arpeggios, a Bösendorfer chord of nature progression, a Steinway chord of nature progression, and finally a chromatic scale played on both pianos together.

The recording was not done under "laboratory" conditions; these are real tunings of real pianos; there may be questionable unisons in the high treble, especially on the Bösendorfer. You are welcome to come try to tune them yourself if you think you can do better!

I believe the results that are heard in the recording are good. These results are interesting given how PureTuner was able to accomplish the tunings without taking readings off of either piano in order to calculate a tuning before beginning to tune.

Although the Steinway D and Bösendorfer Imperial have widely disparate scales, and tuning them together is a good demonstration of PureTuner's capabilities, some are wondering how well PureTuner can tune a spinet.

There is another audio file at:

www.kentswafford.com/mp3/cn.mp3

This is an audio recording of the results of a tuning with PureTuner of a Cable-Neson spinet built by Everett. Everett spinets have some of the highest inharmonicity on the planet. The recording follows the form set by the previous Steinway/Bösendorfer recording: arpeggios, chord of nature progression, chromatic filled-in triple octave across entire keyboard, chromatic 12ths across entire keyboard, and finally some chromatic 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, and 6ths in the midrange. I believe the results are good, and as always, PureTuner took no readings from the piano in order to calculate a tuning. One just boots the program, chooses a pitch level, and starts tuning in any order.

Thanks.

I looked into it a little more, and it does indeed seem that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does have an effect on reading the vibrations of a string. The main result is that the longer you attempt to read the frequency, the easier it will be to determine.

An informal discussion can be found here: http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcuncertain.html

Thanks Coolkid! I will show this to my father-in-law, who is a retired professor of mathematics.

Whew! Happy I wrote "I can be wrong"...

How does this square with the common understanding that the degree of stretch needed for a good tuning depends on the inharmonicity of the strings? With the SAT, CyberTuner, TuneLab, and Verituner, the target pitches are dependent on the inharmonicity of the particular strings in that piano. The first three of these devices take inharmonicity measurements ahead of time, and the Verituner takes measurements as you tune. In exchange, Verituner places some reasonable limitations on the order of tuning. Even purely aural tuning, when measured afterwards, shows the tendancy to make the overall stretch depend on the inharmonicity.

If Stopper's PureTuner software allows tuning in any order without pre-measurements, then supposedly I could start tuning at C8 if I so desired. That means the software would have to already know the target pitch of C8 before any inharmonicity information is available. Whatever that target pitch is, it would have to be the same for a high-inharmonicity piano and a low-inharmonicity piano. Has anyone posted a typical Stopper tuning as measured by, say, a SAT?

Hey, I've been holding my breath waiting for Jerry Groot to post his own set of audio files! Seriously though, I'm glad Kent took the time to explain what the files were about (which he had explained on the CAUT list; Keith started this thread by posting the link without a full explanation). Tuning with 3:1 intervals in the high treble can result in more contracted octaves than those tuned by 4:1 double octaves. So that is probably part of what Jerry was commenting on.
BTW, Kent is running the OnlyPure program on a Windows Mobile PDA , which has been available for about a year. I await the iPhone version, although I'll need to have a hands on session with the program before I part with my $$.

“Ah well. If people wish to trash the recording, that’s fine.”

I don’t agree with this statement. People have offered their opinion, and their preferences. This is what I am reading…………… as you have stated previously Kent, some folks will like this and others will not. Some folks are Dodge people. Others drive a Chevy.

“You are welcome to come try to tune them yourself if you think you can do better!”

Would tuners be “doing it better” with the Stopper temperament or with what they use at the present time?

Perhaps you are over-reaching with these comments?

quote:
Hey, I've been holding my breath waiting for Jerry Groot to post his own set of audio files!

Now that's kind of s smirky statement there, Patrick. I'm sure if Mr. Groot wants to post some audio files of his tuning, he will do so.
But it sounds kind of sarscastic in light that he was simply giving an opinion, just like we all are doing.

This thread began with several people giving opinions about how great this temperament is. Maybe it is. I'm not questioning that. But anytime someone posts their work there, they open themselves up to both positive and negative feedback.

I for one did not hear what the others were raving about when I listened to the mp3's. But note I qualified my opinion by stating that recordings to me bring out the inherent falicies
of pianos unless they are recorded under the most ideal circumstances.

Don't be snippy, you guys. Kent is a respected member of the guild. His tunings, while maybe not immpecable, certainly were good enough to show the Stopper program to you. Maybe our estimation of our tunings is better when it can't be scrutinized so minutely as it can when it is recorded....

Kent,

I like the tuning on these recordings. I think I would be pretty happy to walk away from these pianos if I had done the tuning. I felt that the high treble sounded a bit flat in the first recordings that Keith posted but I don't hear that in this recording. I would really like to have the chance to sit down to a piano that has been tuned with the stopper program.

I can't pretend to understand the principles that this program employs but all that really matters is does it work, is it a useful tool? If this is the result then the answer is yes.

I still hate the sound of spinets, even when they are well tuned.

quote:
Perhaps you are over-reaching with these comments?

Woah. When I said it's fine to trash the recordings, I meant it, literally. One doesn't put recordings like this out there unless one is prepared to accept criticism.

It would be good if those criticizing the recordings knew exactly what they were hearing. That's all.

I originally posted this to PTG CAUT list, because I thought those who were familiar with tuning a Steinway to a Bosendorfer would be impressed with the tunings. That appears to have been true.

Thanks for the material on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Very helpful.

It would be interesting as Thompson says, to hear the tuning in person rather than via an internet recording played back through mere computer speakers. Perhaps it does sound better in person than it did being recorded and then played back in this manner.

It is interesting regardless that this thing can tune all of the notes on a Bose for one and do so without doing a check as some other programs are required to do. In further thinking on the matter, fine tuning with no mutes or strips isn't an easy task either.

Perhaps, at the next PTG Convention here in Grand Rapids Michigan next summer, we will get an opportunity to listen "up close and personal" to this program. That would prove interesting.

I would wonder what a concert artist might think of this tuning? Would you be satisfied with this type of tuning and the sound of it? But then again, they would probably have to set down and play the piano itself to form a good opinion one way or the other.

Any concert artists out there that might wish to contribute or pose their opinion on the subject?

Keith, I know who Kent is. I'm not trying to be snippy or offensive. Just stating my own opinion on what I heard is all. Perhaps I should have tried writing it differently. :-)

Patrick, I thought you were kinda snippy though. :p I presume that you're joking of course but, either way, I don't have the time or desire to post that stuff and have no clue how to anyway...

I'm just tossing out my opinion as I said about what I heard, like some others here, that's all. No offense intended to anyone out there.

But, if you really want to know what kind of work I do or, what my tunings sound like? Just call our chapter president and ask him what he thinks of me and my work... I'll be glad to give you his number if you want it.

I'm not a physicist, but one specific thing I seem to remember about this principle has to do with the quantum experimentation context it arose out of: On the quantum level it's impossible to do measurements without the possibility that the method of measurement itself will affect a quantity being measured. Measuring one quantity is done with the cost of actively changing the other quantity. I don't see how Stopper's device changes the actual pitch of a string but, even if it did, it seems a little goofy to me -- and a stretch -- to take a principle derived from a totally different context and apply it to piano tuning.

I'd be interested to hear Robert Scott's concerns addressed, if anyone's able to do that.

Kent S., thanks for making an appearance here. I hope you'll hang around and contribute more in the future.

Jeff

Jeff,

I posted a link above explaining this phenomenon in respect to measuring the frequency of vibrations on a string. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle does apply on this level, even though it might not necessarily be obvious.

Check it out and see what you think.

You know, for the heck of it, I recorded my own tuning onto my cell phone after I did a concert tuning on a Steinway D. Holy MOLY what a difference!

I had no clue how rotten a recorded tuning could sound. Especially on a cell phone!!

While the tuning itself was fine, I double checked afterward to make sure nothing had changed. My octaves, unison's etc., were all where they were supposed to be in perfect tune. So, I recorded it again THREE TIMES with the exact same results.

After listening to the recording a few minutes later I thought, WOW, these cell phones sure do a rotten job of reproducing good tunings big time!!!

That made me realize that I no doubt, jumped to conclusions on Kent's Stopper tuning and learned a valuable lesson. The tuning we do will not come out the same recorded onto something as chintzy as a cell phone. Even on a better quality recorder, unless you maybe spend thousands on the recording device, it will not sound the same as being there in person. So, Kent's tuning was probably just fine. I'm sure that the fact that it was recorded and then sent through the internet, is what seemed to have changed things possibly even more so.

I thought this was important to point out for future reference.