Piano World Home Page
Posted By: UnrightTooner Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 01:03 PM
"Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?"


Anybody remember this song? It comes to mind when I find myself being sucked into some of the newest silliness posted on this Forum.

The latest is this teflon powder "pixie dust". I bought some years ago and it didn't seem to do a thing. Someone on this Forum did a controlled test and found that just good ole graphite worked better.

And do we need super-duper spectral analysis to evaluate temperament schemes? Do we even need to define the octave first? Do we need to define the octave at all? If it sounds good, it is good. If you don't know what an octave sounds like, what are you doing tuning, anyway?

For that matter, since a temperament scheme must include tuning some 4ths and 5ths, why not tune the entire circle of 5ths? If you can tune one, you can tune 12; but if you can't tune a 5th can you tune at all, really?

And then there is the whole thing about unisons. If it doesn't sound out-of-tune, then it is a good unison. If I want something that "blooms", I will wait until the flowers come out.

There are surely others that are noticing a lot of poppycock on this Forum.

Posted By: SMHaley Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
"Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?"


Anybody remember this song? It comes to mind when I find myself being sucked into some of the newest silliness posted on this Forum.

The latest is this teflon powder "pixie dust". I bought some years ago and it didn't seem to do a thing. Someone on this Forum did a controlled test and found that just good ole graphite worked better.

And do we need super-duper spectral analysis to evaluate temperament schemes? Do we even need to define the octave first? Do we need to define the octave at all? If it sounds good, it is good. If you don't know what an octave sounds like, what are you doing tuning, anyway?

For that matter, since a temperament scheme must include tuning some 4ths and 5ths, why not tune the entire circle of 5ths? If you can tune one, you can tune 12; but if you can't tune a 5th can you tune at all, really?

And then there is the whole thing about unisons. If it doesn't sound out-of-tune, then it is a good unison. If I want something that "blooms", I will wait until the flowers come out.

There are surely others that are noticing a lot of poppycock on this Forum.



Jeff are you lamenting the absence of certain trouble makers? I am quite enjoying the more relaxed goings on as of late and the significant reduction of said "poppycock."
Jeff,
If I encounter a grand that is producing a squeaking sound between the jack/rep-lever/knuckle and/or also has a rough feel at escapement when playing softly-I have full confidence that putting teflon powder on the knuckle will greatly reduce the problem for a quite long time period of use.

I also know that graphite on the knuckle turns into a glazed, hard surface. And I also know that getting graphite on things in a customers home does not leave a positive impression.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 05:05 PM
The graphite goes onto the jack and lever, not the knuckle. If leather gets hard you can use a stiff brush or replace it. This is what has been done for over 100 years.

[Edit:] I mean the graphite suspended in alcohol, not in the powdered form, which does get everywhere.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 05:08 PM
Originally Posted by SMHaley
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
"Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?"


Anybody remember this song? It comes to mind when I find myself being sucked into some of the newest silliness posted on this Forum.

The latest is this teflon powder "pixie dust". I bought some years ago and it didn't seem to do a thing. Someone on this Forum did a controlled test and found that just good ole graphite worked better.

And do we need super-duper spectral analysis to evaluate temperament schemes? Do we even need to define the octave first? Do we need to define the octave at all? If it sounds good, it is good. If you don't know what an octave sounds like, what are you doing tuning, anyway?

For that matter, since a temperament scheme must include tuning some 4ths and 5ths, why not tune the entire circle of 5ths? If you can tune one, you can tune 12; but if you can't tune a 5th can you tune at all, really?

And then there is the whole thing about unisons. If it doesn't sound out-of-tune, then it is a good unison. If I want something that "blooms", I will wait until the flowers come out.

There are surely others that are noticing a lot of poppycock on this Forum.



Jeff are you lamenting the absence of certain trouble makers? I am quite enjoying the more relaxed goings on as of late and the significant reduction of said "poppycock."


No, it is just a different flavor of poppycock: "S.O.S."
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 07:10 PM
Originally Posted by PaintedPostDave
Great post! I have put it on my site.

"Super-Duper Spectral Analysis": a great title for a book. I wouldn't read it but I would watch the movie.thumb laugh


Uh, are you asking permission?
Posted By: casinitaly Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/02/15 09:18 PM
PaintedPostDave, Upright Tooner may not have a copyright on his post, but PianoWorld certainly does.
You may not need his permission, but you do need Mr. PianoWorld's permission.

Just read the bottom of the page. (I'll save you the trouble)

copyright 1997 - 2015 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission



Members have been banned for putting posts on their own websites without permission.


I'm not convinced that this thread really serves any purpose, so take note that if it turns into another one of the Tech Forum's useless squabbles, ....guess what? Yup, It will be shut down.

So, enjoy your chat guys, but keep it civil.


Originally Posted by casinitaly
copyright 1997 - 2015 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission


Violated by the minute, then hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly over and over as members copy and repost each other’s photos and text postings.

The quote feature which allows this repeatedly renders the copyright claim moot.
If one is quoting from an earlier PW post-to a later PW post-no infringement is happening.

To copy a posting is to reproduce that posting. Along with that one is re-directing. Further and more importantly you or I could take a posting from this forum and post it in multiple forums all over this site.

That is reproduction, re-direction, and re-editing content of this site.

This is in direct conflict with the language in the copyright requirement as it is written.

Read it again.

“No part of this site may be REPRODUCED without prior written permission.”

This is poorly written and should really begin with something like “Notwithstanding some of the editing features available to Pianoworld members"…then we could have the existing language ……

“No part of this site may be REPRODUCED without prior written permission.”

Or some such thing.
Posted By: rysowers Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 03:11 AM
In regards to Teflon powder, I have to agree with Ed.

I know there was someone on the forum who did a "study" that showed graphite worked better than Teflon powder, but I also know that Bill Spurlock did his own study and showed that it could take up to a gram or two off down-weight and I've seen it myself.

Not all Teflon powder is the same. Some has particles that are round. The micro-fine Teflon that Bill sells is irregular shaped and sticks to the leather better. He told me he hunted around quite a bit to find the best product for the application.
Posted By: rysowers Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 03:13 AM
By the way, I LOVE the word "Poppycock"!
[Linked Image]
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 03:15 AM
OK Jeff, I'll bite. Generally I agree that a tuner can make the piano sound great without any sophisticated analysis and just "make it sound good". In that case there is no reason to post on this forum on tuning issues. Personally I am interested in a more or less scientific method to figure out how those tuners "do it". Why? Because I find it interesting.
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Do we even need to define the octave first? Do we need to define the octave at all? If it sounds good, it is good. If you don't know what an octave sounds like, what are you doing tuning, anyway?

Problem is that there is a range of octaves that "sound good". As you know probably even better than I do, if you tune a "good" F3F4 octave, make a temperament, and then expand it by "good" octaves (perfectly reasonable on harpsichord or organ) the result may not be very good. Beginning piano tuners tend to tune their octaves too narrow. It "sounds good" but that is not good enough.

So what is "good enough"? That's not so easy to answer.

I think it's best to first decide on your octave appropriate for the piano, which depends on inharmonicity structure, then fill in the temperament octave, and then expand it by octaves with checks by P5 P4 and M3's. IMHO the P12 is musically irrelevant.
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

For that matter, since a temperament scheme must include tuning some 4ths and 5ths, why not tune the entire circle of 5ths? If you can tune one, you can tune 12; but if you can't tune a 5th can you tune at all, really?

Noone can tune a 5th that precisely, to end up with a closed circle after the 12th fifth, so according to this criterium noone can tune at all. Of course, as you know, this is why you use M3 M6 intervals as checks. Or you can turn it around and rely mainly on tuning M3's and use 5th and 4th as checks. Or maybe also M6? What about m3? So I think it gets complicated enough that some advanced theoretical discussions, many of them originating from yourself, are not out of place.
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

And then there is the whole thing about unisons. If it doesn't sound out-of-tune, then it is a good unison. If I want something that "blooms", I will wait until the flowers come out.

Apparently there are pianists that want different types of unisons, see the movie "pianomania" where that French guy wants his unisons to bloom in a very specific way. You may not want to offer this service, but apparently there is more to a unison than getting it to sound like a unison.
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

There are surely others that are noticing a lot of poppycock on this Forum.

Yes, I am one of those noticers, but now I usually ignore most of it. Occasionally I respond to a specific "poppycock" claim (like a 0.1 cent accurate aural tuning) with specific objections, or challenges, in what I hope is a good scientific objective approach.

I think that is more productive than a generalized claim that "we only need to tune what sounds good and don't need all this egghead stuff".
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

And do we need super-duper spectral analysis to evaluate temperament schemes?

Well, you (and others) thought you could hear if a chromatic M3 sequence had progressive beatrates, but a super-duper spectral analysis showed this was not the case.

Kees
The "site" is the property line! All things within the lines of the site are the property of the site. No conflict whatsoever.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 09:57 AM
If anybody should be sceptical, I should, yet reading the poppycock here is pertially responsible for me tuning well past my sell by date.

Years ago I regularly substituted for musicians in a London ballroom where one of the band had kept an unlicensed bar in the bandroom for years. It was a favourite hangout of police detectives and local minor villains who would grass on the major villains for a drink or two. It was there that I learned how the intelligencia that thought they knew it all were favourite targets for conmen. Even on here, there are crucial omissions from many clever equations.
I am constantly amazed at how management fall for piano acquisition schemes until I call a meeting. There was a time in my life when I was instrumental in the operation of these schemes.

Another after hours hangout for musicians was the old press club where drunken journalists were writing articles on a beer soaked bar. An editor would make up a completely random shock horror headline and give it to a hack to write a filler article on. If it was a believable article, it would make the headlines on a slow news day. It was a strange atmosphere until the presses started up in a nearby basement door at 3.15am like a minor earthquake. That was the signal to relax.
I always read this forum. It keeps me interested. There is a constant flow of ideas some new, most ancient.

I used many of them this morning. I had to quickly work on three recital instruments that are in the process of succumbing to the current cold snap. Knowing what I could get away with on that piano in that acoustic was invaluable. I am more comfortabke if quick scruffy temperament errs on the side of WT. one of the pianos goes our of tune in a similar way every time no matter what the season. I can let unisons "bloom" in a particular way, knowing where how those unisons will will mature allows me to get twice as long a period between tunings. I always bear in mind whether I am solely responsible for a piano or whether I'm part of a tuning team. I know how narrow an octave I can allow and get away with.

In a couple of halls, I was helped by a more senior colleague who advised me to not touch the long steels if they we're slightly sharp at the early tuning because they would be back in tune by the evening tuning thus helping stability and less work if the tuning window is running late. No ensemble has ever caught any of us out with that trick. A professional unit always finishes rehearsing at the appointed time. An amateur unit rarely does.

So yes, despite my worldly experience, or maybe because of it, I swallow everything whole. You never know when you're gonna need it.

It might be poppycock now but oh! so true under certain circumstances. Malone they say about the weather. Give it a minute or two.

Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 10:34 AM
Kees:

Very good response, no poppycock.

Starting this Topic was kinda like slapping my own face to "wake me up." Like "Come on Dutch (my seagoing name...) what are you bothering with that nonsense for? Play your own game. Are you going to let the ship control you are are you going to control the ship?"

Octaves, beat rates, and temperament schemes (oh, my!). We know the level of each other's understanding on these things. And please don't think for a second that I don't appreciate your input. Not that that would effect you in a professional way...

But I have come to the realization that I have been getting things out of order. The temperament comes first, then the octaves. If for no other reason than there are fewer notes to adjust back and forth when setting the temperament. And as you expand the octaves, the temperament can be refined. In fact, the temperament refining checks, like 10ths, also show you how your octaves are. It all goes go hand in hand.

So considering that the old texts on tuning were right about tuning, including tuning SBIs and correcting them when checking with RBIs, maybe other new-fangled procedures should be looked at closer, too. Like: is less friction really always better? I don't think so. We want a certain amount for feel and control. Is pixie dust needed? Well, do manufacturers use it or recommend it? Can I notice a difference, or must I listen to my betters?

So unisons should bloom? Well, they might for a very short period of time. The more important thing is that they should stay. And the best chance for that is to tune them as pure as possible.

I think anything new in such a well established discipline should be carefully considered and given a poppycock factor.
Posted By: Ken Knapp Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 12:11 PM
The copyright statement is fine.

The existence of the "Quote" button IS Frank Baxter's permission to quote things WITHIN the Piano World forums.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 12:38 PM
All:

I have been reading Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man". Some of what he says is poppycock, but other things are spot on. He makes a point that laws should be an expression of natural fair play.

If you quote somebody, you ought to ask their permission so they can be sure it is taken in context, otherwise it is gossip. If somebody owns something, like this Forum and every word on it, you should ask permission to use it. And if you are invited into somebody's house, or onto a Forum, you should behave yourself according to their rules - or leave!

There is no reason to get legalistic. In other words: "Walk right in, sit right down." laugh laugh laugh
Jeff,
So when we set a scale for "Poppycock" ratings do we stop at ten, or should we always go to eleven!
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by Ed McMorrow, RPT
Jeff,
So when we set a scale for "Poppycock" ratings do we stop at ten, or should we always go to eleven!


That would be on a scale of 1.05946... to 2. wink
Posted By: Withindale Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 04:42 PM
All:

Poppycock or not, we may all agree Jeff's posts are literary works. As such Jeff is protected by the Berne Convention which gives him the exclusive right to authorise the reproduction of his works.

By creating his posts Jeff not only becomes the copyright owner but may well confer certain rights over their publication and use on Piano World. I am not so sure the copyright notice on this website is sufficient to overturn the Convention.

In any case, it is far from clear that Frank would want to hold the copyright for all the content of this website and any responsibilities that might imply - see the Board Rules.

All in all I agree with Jeff that it is only common courtesy to ask authors for permission to republish their words elsewhere, as opposed to quoting them in discussion.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 04:47 PM
I hereby offer to sell my rights to every post I have made on Pianoworld for 1 cent each. Who has $51.27?
Posted By: Tunewerk Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Starting this Topic was kinda like slapping my own face to "wake me up." Like "Come on Dutch (my seagoing name...) what are you bothering with that nonsense for? Play your own game. Are you going to let the ship control you are are you going to control the ship?"


Sounds like you need to walk away and do some other things in your life for awhile. This forum isn't such an important thing.

You don't have control over any helm, this is a public space. Your opinion here is as valid as anyone else's.

Credibility comes from sharing information that is true. However new and strange that information might seem to you, it is probably common knowledge for someone else in different circles..
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Tunewerk
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Starting this Topic was kinda like slapping my own face to "wake me up." Like "Come on Dutch (my seagoing name...) what are you bothering with that nonsense for? Play your own game. Are you going to let the ship control you are are you going to control the ship?"


Sounds like you need to walk away and do some other things in your life for awhile. This forum isn't such an important thing.

You don't have control over any helm, this is a public space. Your opinion here is as valid as anyone else's.

Credibility comes from sharing information that is true. However new and strange that information might seem to you, it is probably common knowledge for someone else in different circles..


Oh, my. You would like me to leave wouldn't you?

I have control over what I think, do and say. Accepting poppycock is giving up that control.

Credibility? Credibility is a substitute for truth when you can get someone to believe your poppycock. I say this as a general adage, not pointed at you or anyone in particular.

However if you feel offended, well, where there is smoke there is fire.
Posted By: ando Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 05:31 PM
Convention says that there are about 1 million forums on the internet, and every single one of them allows quoting of other users' posts, and portions thereof. That pretty much ends the discussion. It's an accepted practice on forums, and every user should be aware of that. To anyone not aware of that, one must humbly ask, "what rock have you been hiding under?". Quoting somebody else is merely clarifying what you are responding to. As long as it doesn't distort the meaning or deliberately misquote somebody, it's completely in-actionable. Even if it does, it's the provence of moderators to remove/edit posts and apply penalties. In forums where people often bicker from both sides of an argument, you'd have to have a pretty compelling reason to take action/sue for libel on a post. But as far as just using somebody's posting for the sake of discussion, that falls under fair use and is not copyrightable. Sites like Facebook and Twitter couldn't exist if there was such a thing as copyright on online postings.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 05:39 PM
OK, let's give online copyrights a poppycock factor of 2.

Now what was this Topic about? Getting sucked into new silliness, like how online copyrights are poppycock. Like: who cares!
Posted By: David Boyce Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 05:59 PM
Copyright law is an interesting area, though. And it can be quite complex.

The body of law generally that pertains to this site will be the Law of the United States of America, whence, I think, the Pianoworld site and this Forum originate.

The US copyright legislation allows for "fair use" of others' original work. Fair use includes quoting parts of a work for the purpose of criticism or review.

It seems most likely that if a case did come to court, any court would take the position that by their nature, online discussion forums invite quotation and reply in the forum. It would be held, I think, that any reasonable person participating in an online forum understood this.

"Fair use" would probably not, however, cover somthing like lifting in its entirety someone else's long technical article, and publishing it elsewhere as one's own.

I don't want to drag this thread too far off-topic, but copyright is an interesting subject, in the online age, when publishing is a) instant and b) worldwide.

Those interested in musical copyright cases can look up the UK case Sawkins v. Hyperion, and the Joyce Hatto scandal.

(I used to teach a diploma Unit on copyright law to college students).
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:16 PM
Gosh, there isn't much respect for keeping On Topic here is there?

Well, I guess that's kinda my point!

Thanks for proving it, folks. laugh laugh laugh
Posted By: pyropaul Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:27 PM
It's very simple - you own the rights to stuff you write, even on this forum, but you grant the forum owner the right to use your work on his site (so you can quote people's posts in your replies etc.). You do NOT own what other people write, though, so you cannot cut and paste their works outside of this site without getting their permission.

Simple.

Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by pyropaul
It's very simple - you own the rights to stuff you write, even on this forum, but you grant the forum owner the right to use your work on his site (so you can quote people's posts in your replies etc.). You do NOT own what other people write, though, so you cannot cut and paste their works outside of this site without getting their permission.

Simple.

Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Gosh, there isn't much respect for keeping On Topic here is there?

Well, I guess that's kinda my point!

Thanks for proving it, folks. laugh laugh laugh
Posted By: pyropaul Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by pyropaul
It's very simple - you own the rights to stuff you write, even on this forum, but you grant the forum owner the right to use your work on his site (so you can quote people's posts in your replies etc.). You do NOT own what other people write, though, so you cannot cut and paste their works outside of this site without getting their permission.

Simple.

Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Gosh, there isn't much respect for keeping On Topic here is there?

Well, I guess that's kinda my point!

Thanks for proving it, folks. laugh laugh laugh


I missed the bit about saying "any now back to the topic at hand" laugh
Posted By: ando Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Gosh, there isn't much respect for keeping On Topic here is there?

Well, I guess that's kinda my point!

Thanks for proving it, folks. laugh laugh laugh


Jeff, your thread isn't about anything anyway - so it's technically impossible to keep it on topic. wink
Posted By: David Boyce Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 06:50 PM
Quote
ou do NOT own what other people write, though, so you cannot cut and paste their works outside of this site without getting their permission.

Simple.


Not that simple. The US Copyright Act allows for "fair use", which can include copying a short extract of a work elsewhere for the purposes of criticism or review.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 07:09 PM
Ya know, I've seen better manners in a barnyard.

Perhaps I will take Trainwreck's Tunewerk's advice.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/03/15 08:35 PM
It's OK to sit quietly and listen occasionally while an old friend has a bit of a rant.
Yes sir RXD,
One----just takes a couple of very slow sips of the recreational beverage---and---listens with a bemused silence of a sort.
Posted By: David Boyce Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/04/15 10:01 AM
Strong liquor! Gasp!
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/04/15 11:06 AM
.......or a huge pot of steaming hot tea and be genuinely interested. ....He's an old and loyal friend, don't forget.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/04/15 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
.......or a huge pot of steaming hot tea and be genuinely interested. ....He's an old and loyal friend, don't forget.


Uh, who is "an old and loyal friend" ?

I really do fly blind socially.
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/04/15 06:02 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

But I have come to the realization that I have been getting things out of order. The temperament comes first, then the octaves. If for no other reason than there are fewer notes to adjust back and forth when setting the temperament. And as you expand the octaves, the temperament can be refined. In fact, the temperament refining checks, like 10ths, also show you how your octaves are. It all goes go hand in hand.

I'm not sure I understand how the temperament can come before the octaves? Do you mean tune a pure P12 (D3A4), then fill it in with the temperament, and the octave size will be whatever results?

Because with a "normal" temperament setting method using only one octave (F3F4) the octave can obviously be anything you want and should be decided before tuning the temperament.

Hope I'm not being off topic by being on topic if you know what I mean. smile

Kees


Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/04/15 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

But I have come to the realization that I have been getting things out of order. The temperament comes first, then the octaves. If for no other reason than there are fewer notes to adjust back and forth when setting the temperament. And as you expand the octaves, the temperament can be refined. In fact, the temperament refining checks, like 10ths, also show you how your octaves are. It all goes go hand in hand.

I'm not sure I understand how the temperament can come before the octaves? Do you mean tune a pure P12 (D3A4), then fill it in with the temperament, and the octave size will be whatever results?

Because with a "normal" temperament setting method using only one octave (F3F4) the octave can obviously be anything you want and should be decided before tuning the temperament.

Hope I'm not being off topic by being on topic if you know what I mean. smile

Kees




Kees:

Seeing as how this realization was what urged me to start this Topic, yeah let's explore it, but let's also remember this is just one example.

First, Dr. White's sequence was recognized as the standard way to tune at the time. That is not to say that it was the "best" or "correct", but it was the recognized standard. His sequence ended with tuning F4 to A#3 and checking with the F3-F4 octave. And like all checks, it proves or disproves that the preceding intervals were tuned correctly.

Perhaps you remember this demo. It was part of a somewhat embarrassing Topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU-4Tg_AiFA&feature=youtu.be

At 3:43 F4 is tuned to A#3 and the octave is checked, without the benefit of RBI checks. I was that confident. Interestingly the octave sounds great even though the M3:M10 test shows it to be quite wide of 4:2.

But let's say that octave wasn't so good. What would that mean? It would mean that one or more SBIs was wrong, that's all. It's just another check. So you fix it. What's the big deal?

Or let's say you start expanding the temperament downward and get into some oddly wound strings. So you decide to adjust some notes. But why jump through hoops of getting the octaves just so until it is time to expand the temperament?

Yes, it can be argued that until you know how the octaves lie (lay?) you cannot get the temperament right. But I think it depends on where the significant errors are. If you cannot get the RBIs to be progressive, anyway, (which you have shown with run-of-the-mill spectral analysis wink ) does it matter if expanding the temperament with an octave that would cause the RBIs to be unprogressive matter? You could expect both the temperament and the expansion to be a bit random. Some progressions will benefit, some will be harmed. The ones that are noticeable are then fixed. This would have been the case in expanding the good, but imperfect, temperament in the video. So what's the big deal?

Another error that seems to be completely ignored is string stability. They will always drift a little bit. Again, randomness will help sometimes and hurt other times. But the more strings you are using to set the temperament, the more inexplicable problems you can have. Tuning an octave adds more strings, and tuning more than one octave adds even more. Is it necessary when you will find out if there are random adjustments needed as you expand the temperament regardless of whether you define the octaves first or not? I don't think so.

But let's say that, as a comparison, we tune the F3-F4 octave toward the beginning and continue with Dr. White's sequence. We come to A#3 and find that we have to leave other intervals like A#3-D#4 and F#3-A#3 a little different than we like, but F#3-D4 is actually improved. Maybe we should move both F3 and F4? Or.... maybe we should just start expanding and see what really needs fixed as we hear more M6s! So what was gained by defining the octave first?

Ah, but this is a moot point when CM3s are tuned at the beginning of a sequence. Then you do need octaves, don't you? What a pain! I guess that is what you have to do if you don't tune with a 4th and 5th sequence. I would guess this is where the perceived necessity of tuning octaves first started, which is poppycock. smile
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 04:02 AM
Thanks for sharing that nice lecture Jeff.

I understood everything, so it's not "poppycock", which is a word I was not familiar with, but Google tells me the synonyms are "nonsense, rubbish, claptrap, balderdash, blather, moonshine, garbage, bullshit, hogwash, baloney, piffle, twaddle, bunkum, drivel" so I think I get the idea, except that the "Urban Dictionary" tells me "piffle" means "The act of having sex in an amphitheater".

Kees
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 08:56 AM
You are welcome, Kees:

Let me add a phrase to the definitions of poppycock. Sometimes people say "Thanks for sharing" when they mean "Poppycock." wink

And understanding an argument from the Flat Earth Society doesn't mean that you think the earth is flat. But we can still respect beliefs that differ from ours.

I was thinking that it is possible to set a ladder of CM3s and produce an octave, rather than starting with one. F3-C#4 beats the same as C#4-F4 with an 8:4 octave. Of course this would be pretty rough on a spinet, although you could just make C#4-F4 beat a bit slower. So here is another way to show that octaves don't have to come first.

But, please, what do you think about what I posted?
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 10:47 AM
Jeff, I looked at your video. Quite impressive for speed. I won't go into the accuracy issues because pin setting and NSL issues are uppermost in my mind and accuracy is of no importance if it won't or is not expected to stay there.
on a more recent post you said that it can be expected that Some notes will drift. This has also been said by others on this forum who should know better.

While I know that it was for demonstration of tuning and was an old video, I heard almost no evidence of pin and NSL setting in your video. It didn't help that you lowered each string by a comparatively enormous amount before tuning. This in itself will create instability even with the most assiduous pin setting. (I, Personally never move a string more than I have to and then only in the direction I want it to go. But that's just me.
You are not alone, I have seen videos by the legends who do the usual excessive lowering before tuning "to prevent string breakage". even they would achieve better stability if they didn't do that and, not to be judgemental, the finished result leaves room for improvement in most of them.

My point is this:
I firmly believe that anybody who has read these pages over the past 5-6 years and assiduously practiced and experimented with the content in order to separate the wheat from the poppycock, should by up there with the most solid tuners.

My further point:
Nowhere, but nowhere have I found more valuable information on pin and NSL setting than I have on this forum and that's just one aspect of piano technology.

I do not overlook the contribution that you have made to the logical and mathematical aspects of tuning. I know it has made me a better tuner in many respects over the past years since I have read your contributions.

I thank you and respect you wholeheartedly for that, Jeff.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 01:12 PM
rXd:

Thanks for your response.

The piano in the video is my personal Charles Walter console and setting the pins is a PITA! There is very little feedback, very hard to tell what is going on with the NSL or the twist in the pin. But how could you have any idea of what is going on with the pin setting since you could not see the hammer technique in the video??? The setting must be done without working the pitch back down. Perhaps that is why you thought there was no pin setting going on. There was nothing to hear on this piano, only see.

The reason for knocking all the pitches down first, and so much, in the demo was so that no one could accuse me of knowing ahead of time about where the pitches should be. I was trying to show that many of the criticisms of Dr. White's sequence are unjustified. It just so happened to work well with the current subject: setting the temperament before the octaves.

I do usually knock the pitch down first so as to have a fresh start on evaluating what is going on with the rendering and spring in the pin. But not as much as I did in this demo. This CW really needs knocking down to be sure of a "fresh start". I do not apologize at all with this beast.

I am trying not to be offended by your response to my statement on notes drifting while setting the temperament. The typical piano that I tune is probably much different than what you tune. Having a 40 pitch raise is typical. The relaxing of bends in the wire, I believe, are a major culprit in instability and impossible to predict.

But aren't you focusing on just this one random error that I am talking about? There are others that I did not mention, including scaling jumps. Did you understand my point about how random errors can add or subtract from each other, requiring adjustments that are best made while expanding the temperament? I hope you are not missing the forest because the trees are in the way. smile
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 04:13 PM
Thanks for your understanding, Jeff. I too fly blind. With me it's diplomacy. I come from a part of my country where we tend to speak bluntly. I can say anything I need to convey with three grunts and a spit and be perfectly understood. Not only do I not know that there is a more diplomatic way to say what I have to say, I don't know that I don't know. More than once have I been taken out for a disciplinary drink, on occasion a disciplinary dinner by management to be advised by diplomatic example about my forthright communication style.
Please forgive me.

I worked for a CW dealer about 25 years ago and literally used to tune those uprights by the truckload. Do they still leave the pencil marks on the keys from marking out the weighting? I guessed it was your CW and you did day in a recent post that you expected pitches to move and I too would not use a downward final movement on those CWs. It was also not a pitch raise other than the iatrogenic instability caused by lowering the pitches so much.

If you were springing them down that far and back up the pin could not have been adequately set. Surprising as it may seem, having taught tuning, I can hear whether a pin is set from outside the room and walk in there and confirm it. Unbelievable does not equate with poppycock, I hope.

Far be it from me to teach you how to tune your own piano. (was that diplomatic or what? The words nearly stuck in my throat). That sentence is always followed by "but" which negates the whole effort it took so I'll abandon it. It is used sarcastically too often these days, anyway.

I just say the following in case anybody hasn't thought of it and in the hope that the fruits of my labor are taken in the spirit in which they are given.

Although it sounds unbelievable, there is a way of turning those springy pins without twisting them or springing them. It involves a fulcrum on the lever formed by the thumb with a lot of thumb pressure and the lever in line with the strings. This is quick and easy on a grand but I find it slow and awkward on an upright. My right elbow is at an uncomfortable angle. There is also a similar way using the left hand on the lever which I used for a couple of years but slowly abandoned over the years in favour of an outrageous cheat that was quick and surprisingly solid it was the exact opposite of the hundred year old 'legitimate' lever technique was easier for me with a more springy lever. (another current heresy) widespread use of a lever for tuning is relatively recent in Europe. By the fourth piano, I had it down but I had to spend a few more minutes on the first three afterwards. The skill I taugt myself with under pressure with help from more experienced colleagues have served me all my career.
That one advantage of dealer work. You have to be fast and solid to make decent money but the pianos are right next to each other. Not to mention the camaraderie.

Both of these methods I have gone into at great length with photograph and a lot of help from others in this very forum. I hope all my efforts in offering a viable but difficult option were not dismissed without being practiced at least for a few minutes. Turning a tight pin without twisting it? Poppycock!!!

To turn a pin without springing it would tempt a tuner to "pull it up and leave it" but this can be deceptive on most pins of most pianos including the CW.

In the lowering of pitch on your video, Jeff I couldn't tell if you were turning the pin in the block or merely springing them lower. I suspected turning them because with a well set pin and NSL it would not be possible to spring them down that far. One of my tests for a set pin is to try to spring it flat and if the speaking length goes flat, I know that I have to turn it in the block some more. But then, that's me. I would spring them a tiny bit sharp if I had to prove that I was tuning from scratch.

I hope this is of help to somebody somewhere. I have always worked alongside and accepted help from colleagues and still do. All of them have different experience.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 04:48 PM
rXd:

I am smiling. smile Since you confess to speaking bluntly, I choose to do the same. I certainly learned how sometime during my 24 years at sea. wink And you really shouldn't be worried about offending me. I am more concerned about allowing myself to be offended: "If neither foe nor loving friend can hurt you; if all men count with you, but none too much."

I think you are an ivory tower tuner. When it comes to pin setting, there is no one technique that works in all situations. And the only way to know what to do is to be able to know what is going on with the pin and NSL, which can only be known indirectly. Sometimes there is very little indication of what is going on.

But I don't want to get into a stability discussion. My PTL (Poppycock Tolerance Level) is pretty low right now. I will just say that you misunderstood at least some of what I wrote. It may be a void in your understanding.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 05:15 PM
You're probably right, Jeff.

More tea?
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
You're probably right, Jeff.

More tea?


Coffee. Black, strong and hot, please.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 05:36 PM
Black as the divel and hot as heck.

Coming right up!
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
Black as the divel and hot as heck.

Coming right up!


Could be that you are being patronizing. But why should that affect what I do?
Posted By: Withindale Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 06:32 PM
When you have finished your coffee, Jeff, would you say random adjustments are a necessary evil or the essence of fine piano tuning?

Tuner error excluded as "pappekak".

Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Withindale
When you have finished your coffee, Jeff, would you say random adjustments are a necessary evil or the essence of fine piano tuning?

Tuner error excluded as "pappekak".



Who said anything about random adjustments? Are you talking about making adjustments for random errors? And why wouldn't at least some tuning errors also be random rather than systematic? No one is perfect you know. Or should I say, I would hate to be perfect considering what happened to the only perfect Person.

And "fine piano tuning" is too ivory tower for me. I prefer robust tuning. The kind that is worth the price and lasts.
The very finest tuning is also the most robust because when the pitch of each string is centered perfectly in the "happy zone"-it takes more movement to produce an annoying change.

For example; if the treble is flattened to the max and the bass stretched the most flat-when the humidity rises a little the tuning sounds bad quickly.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 07:28 PM
Ed:

Some people might consider a "fine tuning" to be on the point of almost too much stretch, or extremely blooming unisons, or more of a well temperament, or who knows what. So I decided to avoid being pulled into such poppycock by stating my preference for a "robust tuning".
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
You are welcome, Kees:

Let me add a phrase to the definitions of poppycock. Sometimes people say "Thanks for sharing" when they mean "Poppycock." wink

And understanding an argument from the Flat Earth Society doesn't mean that you think the earth is flat. But we can still respect beliefs that differ from ours.

I was thinking that it is possible to set a ladder of CM3s and produce an octave, rather than starting with one. F3-C#4 beats the same as C#4-F4 with an 8:4 octave. Of course this would be pretty rough on a spinet, although you could just make C#4-F4 beat a bit slower. So here is another way to show that octaves don't have to come first.

But, please, what do you think about what I posted?


I agree you can tune the temperament without deciding on the octave in advance, though if you go through the circle of fifths and check octave at the end you will either accept or reject the octave so in a sense you have already decided on it, albeit with some leeway, but not tuned it.

An analogy that works for me is the ballistics problem: what angle should my cannon point to hit a target at a given distance and elevation, assuming we know the cannonball velocity?

Method 1 to solve it is to consider all ballistic parabolae that pass through the cannon and the target and look for the one which has the correct initial velocity. This is like the CM3 method.

Method 2 to solve it is to consider all ballistic parabolae for all cannon angles, calculate where the impact and search for the angle to gets you close enough.

In math it's a boundary value method versus a shooting method to solve these kind of problems. There is no "best" method.

About "randomness" I kinda think that's what give a piano it's character as an acoustic instrument. If you had a perfect scaling, strings that have partials that follow Youngs law perfectly, perfectly smooth voicing, and a perfect tuning, it would sound like an electronic instrument.

My personal taste, but I don't like the stuff that comes out of the big classical music studio factories, it sounds polished to death. (Sorry rxd.)

Kees
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 07:55 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
Black as the divel and hot as heck.

Coming right up!


Could be that you are being patronizing. But why should that affect what I do?


Sorry, Jeff.

"Black as the devil and hotter'n' hel" is a common description of coffee that I understand comes from the military. I think I first heard it on American airbases when I was in Germany. I never thought of it as patronising.
I, in turn may have misinterpreted your request to replace tea with coffee as a return to our friendly banter.

I can see that you are still perturbed. Anything I say at this point is liable to random interpretation and as usefull as a snooze button on a fire alarm.
I will, however, continue to see the silver lining even in the mushroom shaped cloud that this thread keeps on descending over this thread.

I'll back off now.
Posted By: Withindale Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
... you will find out if there are random adjustments needed as you expand the temperament regardless of whether you define the octaves first or not...

Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Who said anything about random adjustments?

I thought you made a very interesting point. One that gets obscured by Poppycock and errors (I am learning about them).

The random adjustments in question relate to all the unexpected variations in the sound of a piano that you cannot predict with ETDs or theoretical models. You know they will be there and that you will have to deal with them when you find them. If you are an Ed McM you will get rid of some but then find more.

Seems to me what distinguishes real pianos from pianos you can tune to root 43, an idealised Railsback curve, or some Holy Grail, are those random variations.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/05/15 09:34 PM
........My personal taste, but I don't like the stuff that comes out of the big classical music studio factories, it sounds polished to death. (Sorry rxd.)

Kees
[/quote]

Nor do I. Kees, ...,nor do I.

And for many more very different reasons. Much of it is also quite rough. I only ever listen to classical stations in the car and I note where in the world it comes from.

Some recording engineers never take their headphones off and, of course are never on the studio floor once recording starts. . The tuner is often the only one that moves freely between the live sound from a listening distance in the studio and the recorded sound in the booth.

Don't get me started.

Many session musicians are far superior to some (not all) big names. They are better recompensed and can go home to the stockbroker belt every night.

I also know which side my bread is buttered. An hours music represents 4/5 days of highly paid work for me. Easy, relaxed days when I get to continually scrutinise my own work. Something I would rarely do if left to my own devices. With that much time, we can certainly get nerdily perfectionist about the whole thing. A job will expand to fill the te allotted. Not necessarily a good thing.

When i was a musician I used to work with a broadcasting musical unit where the mikes were live all the time. If the first take was good enough, (sight reading) that take was used. Over-rehearsal does indeed kill the spirit of the music, I totally agree. Piecing together the best takes is even worse. I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing with my pay packet either.
There have been ongoing maintenance cutbacks in some studios so I'm glad you think it is still highly polished, excessively or not. I also learn what I can get away with and still produce a good tuning when time is at a premium as it sometimes is.

I know what I can change and what I cannot change and, hopefully, the wisdom to know the difference. fortunately, while I thoroughly enjoy my job, I'm not emotionally attached to it as a source of my identity and therefor keep my integrity.

The exec mgr. of the Wigmore Hall once playfully said I was "just a piano tuning whore" because, although I am one of 3-4 who tune the house pianos, I also turn up to tune some of the visiting piano of a different make.
I have been called a lot of things here too. Not such playful intent, often merely face-saving remarks. Leaving the psychology of name calling aside, they are backhanded compliments if they stop and think about what they are saying.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
...

An analogy that works for me is the ballistics problem: what angle should my cannon point to hit a target at a given distance and elevation, assuming we know the cannonball velocity?

...

Of course the analogies that work for me are navigation. Take bearings from a gyro compass that have +/- 1/2 deg of accuracy and radar ranges that have +/- 1/10 mile of accuracy. Two bearings or two ranges that are 90 degrees from each other are good, but three that are 120 degrees from each other are better.

But when you plot three "lines of position", there is usually a small triangle. Oddly, the actual position is just as likely to be outside the triangle as inside.

But it is never a good idea to use more than 4 lines of position to fix your location. You can end up with two or more separate points where three lines cross. Then how do you decide where you are?

That can never happen with three or four lines. It can never happen with two lines either, but what if one of the lines is wrong from a simple blunder? You have no way of knowing without the third line as a cross check.

And then there is the ultimate cross check - how many feet or fathoms do you have below the keel? Does it agree with the position on the chart? And something that should be obvious is: before a ship runs aground, the depth beneath the keel decreases, eventually to zero. Hooda thunk it?

Anyhoo, I won't try to figure out direct tuning analogies for all this. Just that sometimes one thing is trusted more and sometimes another. Happens both in tuning and navigation.

I was navigating a Coast Guard Cutter and we ran aground once. The Captain was a very level headed man. He said "We aren't looking to blame anyone. Right now we need to know which direction is deeper water." I used every bit of information we had, it all agreed, and I had to tell him that our position was in the deepest part of the channel. See, we didn't know the channel had shifted. If we had paid attention to the color of the buoy (which we were getting ready to set in it's position - ahem - ) it would have been obvious where the channel actually was. Hooda thunk it?

Anyhoo, tuning can be like that. If the fourths, fifths and octaves are right, you know you are in the channel. If the RBIs are right too, you know which side of the channel. But if the RBIs are right and the SBIs are wrong, well the channel shifted or something obvious is being overlooked.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by Withindale
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
... you will find out if there are random adjustments needed as you expand the temperament regardless of whether you define the octaves first or not...

Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Who said anything about random adjustments?

I thought you made a very interesting point. One that gets obscured by Poppycock and errors (I am learning about them).

The random adjustments in question relate to all the unexpected variations in the sound of a piano that you cannot predict with ETDs or theoretical models. You know they will be there and that you will have to deal with them when you find them. If you are an Ed McM you will get rid of some but then find more.

Seems to me what distinguishes real pianos from pianos you can tune to root 43, an idealised Railsback curve, or some Holy Grail, are those random variations.


No, I don't think you get what I mean. I think your own thoughts are in the way.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 02:49 AM
Originally Posted by rXd


Sorry, Jeff.

...

I can see that you are still perturbed.

...

I'll back off now.


No, I am not perturbed, I am confused. I get confused when someone is being nice. Same thing happens when someone is sarcastic. So then I seek clarification and it is read as being aggressive. Sorry.
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

But it is never a good idea to use more than 4 lines of position to fix your location. You can end up with two or more separate points where three lines cross. Then how do you decide where you are?

A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

Without being patronizing may I suggest an exercise for you?

Tune a standard octave temperament F3F4 as good as you can. Then expand the temperament say to C3 C5 using only octaves of your choice (ie the same as the F3F4 octave you have). No P4P5M3M6 checks.

If this does not sound good, then clearly it not a good idea to rigorously tune a specific octave type, which is (if I get it) what you argue.

I tried this in the past both aurally, and by laboriously measuring partials, computing the octave expansion and tuning what I computed with an ETD programmed for what I calculated (I am not that confident in my aural tuning skills).

It sounded "wrong".

Then when I retuned everything with an ETD, disregarding the small random fluctuations in inharmonicity, i.e., pretending the IH curve is smooth, it sounded "right".

My explanation is that aurally when expanding the temperament you should take into account all the intervals and compromise with common sense, balancing P4P5P8M6M3 progressions as they will all want different things.

So in fact I believe the commonly held opinion that an ETD can't tune accurately because it does not know all the partials is poppycock. In fact it is better to pretend the partials are all regular and tune with that illlusion.

I think (just think) that an aural tuner makes all these judgement calls and intuitively balances quality of all intervals when expanding the temperament. And this process is well approximated by drawing a smooth curve through the randomly oscillating inharmonicity curve and tuning according to that.

Just some thoughts, not trying to argue any particular point.

Kees


Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

But it is never a good idea to use more than 4 lines of position to fix your location. You can end up with two or more separate points where three lines cross. Then how do you decide where you are?

A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

Without being patronizing may I suggest an exercise for you?

Tune a standard octave temperament F3F4 as good as you can. Then expand the temperament say to C3 C5 using only octaves of your choice (ie the same as the F3F4 octave you have). No P4P5M3M6 checks.

If this does not sound good, then clearly it not a good idea to rigorously tune a specific octave type, which is (if I get it) what you argue.

I tried this in the past both aurally, and by laboriously measuring partials, computing the octave expansion and tuning what I computed with an ETD programmed for what I calculated (I am not that confident in my aural tuning skills).

It sounded "wrong".

Then when I retuned everything with an ETD, disregarding the small random fluctuations in inharmonicity, i.e., pretending the IH curve is smooth, it sounded "right".

My explanation is that aurally when expanding the temperament you should take into account all the intervals and compromise with common sense, balancing P4P5P8M6M3 progressions as they will all want different things.

So in fact I believe the commonly held opinion that an ETD can't tune accurately because it does not know all the partials is poppycock. In fact it is better to pretend the partials are all regular and tune with that illlusion.

I think (just think) that an aural tuner makes all these judgement calls and intuitively balances quality of all intervals when expanding the temperament. And this process is well approximated by drawing a smooth curve through the randomly oscillating inharmonicity curve and tuning according to that.

Just some thoughts, not trying to argue any particular point.

Kees




My first thought is: Since I would not tune C3-C4 as the same octave as C4-C5 aurally, this would be an invalid exercise. But that does not mean you have a invalid point.

No, we should not "rigorously tune a specific octave type". But that is not my point.

My point is that everything we deal with when tuning has small errors that are imperceptible individually. Many are random, although some are systematic. Sometimes these errors add up to a perceptible error and sometimes they cancel each other out. Without doubt you understand this concept. I am afraid to even mention it lest I seem insulting.

You have aptly shown this to be the case, and Mark C. acknowledges it, even in the temperament. Mr. Swafford also recognizes this in his "Any which way" method.

Consider this: The 12 temperament notes will have errors up to probably +/- 1 cent (about the amount one note of an RBI changes to make it unprogressive). And the octaves, if used to make the temperament more than 12 notes, will also have errors up to probably the same amount of +/- 1 cent (amount an RBI test for an octave might sound to beat the same).

So here is my point: Trying to set the temperament by first defining the octave just adds more errors, making it more difficult to set a good temperament. Like you said, a man with two watches never knows what time it is. It is better (more practical, more accurate, less frustrating) to limit the temperament to 12 notes. Then when expanding the temperament, and creating octaves (which also have errors) any additive errors that are perceivable can then be dealt with. And as the temperament expands, more and more cross checks are available making it more likely that errors will be additive, become perceptible, and can be dealt with. But dealing with them should be consistent. I choose to make the SBIs the "watch" with the right time.

And folks, please don't worry about offending me. If I am offended it is my problem, not yours. I really do ask about what somebody "means by that" in response to a post because I really don't know, not to be defensive. It's OK even if you are deliberately offensive. I am just asking. smile
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 01:06 PM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
...

A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never sure.

...

I just remembered. In the "old days" Navy ships carried three chronometers. Probably still do, but are battery operated.
Posted By: Withindale Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
My point is that everything we deal with when tuning has small errors ... but dealing with them should be consistent. I choose to make the SBIs the "watch" with the right time.

Just what I wanted to understand; how you deal with them. Thank you, Jeff.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 09:27 PM
It is very gratifying to get PM's when something like this comes to light. I thank you all.

I cannot answer all the questions but I would suggest looking through my old posts for details on the techniques I mentioned, including the "outrageous cheat" I mentioned. That's only a few months ago. Anybody who wishes to know about the techniques i have expounded surely won't mind working for it a little like any other researcher. The thumb pressure lever technique is an ancient technique and is in many classic tuning books and I write about it here about 2-3 years ago. you will find some of the usual negative comments found on here but you will see past them. Some posters will say anything to save face or be argumentative.

There is one other thing I have written about that may be causing confusion.

The impression may have been gained in the back and forth in this thread that fine tuning has to be somehow in contradistinction to solid tuning.
Does anybody have any idea of the vulgar ferocity that at some time or other, most of the concert grands get attacked by hack concert pianists? Leave aside the misguided teachings that cause this, the truth is that we never know who's going to "play" the pianos we tune. Not only do we create the finest tunings possible, they have to withstand and resist anything including equally misguided "extended techniques"

Only last week I had to clean out bits of rubber and screws from the soundboard where a piano had been prepared without asking permission. Dampers were misaligned so that the piano was unplayable. A retired concert piano had been hired in for this concert (£1500 for the evening) but they prepared both of them. I was able to do all this in the space of an ordinary tuning because the tuning was not disturbed by this abuse. this is an extremely rare occurrence but never disturbs our tuning.

That's how solidly we have to tune. Perhaps it is because we rarely use test blows that this misguided supposition sprung up. No test blow will equate to the vulgarity that some can hit a piano key. It all has to be done by pin and NSL setting. I cannot hit a piano key as hard as some. Nor would I want to.

This is my reality. A solid, robust tuning cannot be achieved by test blows, however vicious without pin and NSL setting. If the settings are skilfully done,test blows are unnecessary and can even be misleading, giving a false sense of security.

I tuned a piano this morning at 8am that required a slight pitch raise, (2Hz. I had another appointment 10 minutes away at 9 so I had to accomplish it quickly. As it happens, I signed in at 7.58 and signed out at 8.40 with time for a pee and a chat with the stage manager. All this against two vacuum cleaners in the auditorium and a symphony orchestra setting being assembled. We all have our jobs to do. There isn't time for a prima donna.
I went back in after the rehearsal and corrected some sharpness in the fifth and seventh octaves and , of course the long steels. There was almost nothing to do at the six o'clock checkover. .
We are not effete and precious milquetoasts but rugged solid workmen who know the business.
As I have said before, the test for the job is to deflect each string almost to its neighbour before checking the musical value of a candidates' tuning. Test blows are childsplay compared to this test. Your average tuner has no idea.
Almost nobody passes this test.....almost. Unbelievable but.... True.

Just so there's no confusion.

Oh, somebody suggested that middles go sharp in humidity and make an unsharpened treble sound flatter is not experienced with the type of large pianos that we are dealing with many times daily. The first areas to go sharp with humidity on many major 9' grands are parts of the fifth and seventh octaves and the long steels. The middle is often the last part to sharpen but it does eventually.
Dryness does affect the middle first but can also sharpen the fifth and seventh octaves before they succumbs to more dryness. This may be a function of the way the NSL's are set but theory is not important when a job is to be done where the rubber hits the road. They are more sensitive than other instruments to atmospheric changes. Anybody who has never seen one up close, let alone tuned one or many of them repeatedly can't be expected to know Most tuners have never even seen one, where do they get the arrogance to attempt to expound on them? Can somebody help me understand this madness?

Somebody who has never seen an active newer concert grand up close let alone tuned 7-8 different ones every day cannot be expected to know any of this and, of course their assumptions and suppositions should be disregarded. How can they possibly be expected to know anything??

Will somebody fetch me a cup of tea?
I've not even started yet.
I have too much respect for this readership, this industry and my profession to let this idiocy continue and I'm bending over backwards not to make anybody look stupid.
Posted By: alfredo capurso Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/06/15 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
You are welcome, Kees:

Let me add a phrase to the definitions of poppycock. Sometimes people say "Thanks for sharing" when they mean "Poppycock." wink

And understanding an argument from the Flat Earth Society doesn't mean that you think the earth is flat. But we can still respect beliefs that differ from ours.

I was thinking that it is possible to set a ladder of CM3s and produce an octave, rather than starting with one. F3-C#4 beats the same as C#4-F4 with an 8:4 octave. Of course this would be pretty rough on a spinet, although you could just make C#4-F4 beat a bit slower. So here is another way to show that octaves don't have to come first.

But, please, what do you think about what I posted?


...SNIP...

About "randomness" I kinda think that's what give a piano it's character as an acoustic instrument. If you had a perfect scaling, strings that have partials that follow Youngs law perfectly, perfectly smooth voicing, and a perfect tuning, it would sound like an electronic instrument.

...SNIP...

Kees


Hi,

Fortunately we do not run that risk, is that only a cliché? I shall say that it is not as "random" as it seems to be, and comparing a piano with an electronic instrument is wrong from the start, remember oranges and apples? Would you say that an electronic keyboard is perfect?

Perhaps "unnatural" was the word intented? And perhaps one has to be equipped with the right "tools", in order to perceive and/or appreciate a form of perfection whatsoever. I believe many pianists I have met won't have had much time to play with forums, having to concentrate on maturing their art.

Oh, I may well regret to have posted in this thread but, you know, nobody is.. perfect :-)

Regards, a.c.
.

Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 10:47 AM
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Anybody who has never seen one up close, let alone tuned one or many of them repeatedly can't be expected to know Most tuners have never even seen one, where do they get the arrogance to attempt to expound on them? Can somebody help me understand this madness?

Somebody who has never seen an active newer concert grand up close let alone tuned 7-8 different ones every day cannot be expected to know any of this and, of course their assumptions and suppositions should be disregarded. How can they possibly be expected to know anything??

Will somebody fetch me a cup of tea?
I've not even started yet.
I have too much respect for this readership, this industry and my profession to let this idiocy continue and I'm bending over backwards not to make anybody look stupid.


rXd:

You are taking a small, narrow corner of the tuning world and professing special knowledge that can only be known from experiencing it. You emphasize how these pianos and their use is very different than the rest of the tuning world, that the normal rules don't count and normal tuners don't know what they are talking about in regard to these pianos. This is all probably very true.

By the same token, us mere mortals would know things that you could not possibly know. Old clunkers are a different animal, too.

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?


Posted By: ando Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?


Special knowledge will always be more "special" than normal knowledge - but it may not be more important.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 12:21 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Anybody who has never seen one up close, let alone tuned one or many of them repeatedly can't be expected to know Most tuners have never even seen one, where do they get the arrogance to attempt to expound on them? Can somebody help me understand this madness?

Somebody who has never seen an active newer concert grand up close let alone tuned 7-8 different ones every day cannot be expected to know any of this and, of course their assumptions and suppositions should be disregarded. How can they possibly be expected to know anything??

Will somebody fetch me a cup of tea?
I've not even started yet.
I have too much respect for this readership, this industry and my profession to let this idiocy continue and I'm bending over backwards not to make anybody look stupid.


rXd:

You are taking a small, narrow corner of the tuning world and professing special knowledge that can only be known from experiencing it. You emphasize how these pianos and their use is very different than the rest of the tuning world, that the normal rules don't count and normal tuners don't know what they are talking about in regard to these pianos. This is all probably very true.

By the same token, us mere mortals would know things that you could not possibly know. Old clunkers are a different animal, too.

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?



There it all goes again. How many times have I said, in previous threads and in this one.
For more than twenty years I was a tuner/tech in rural America, not a coupla hundred miles from where you are currently operating and then further west in the mountains. I haven't forgotten the tin(n)y spinets an big old' clunkers.
You never answered my question whether CW still left the pencil marks on the keys where they marked off the weightings. I got a private text answering it from one of my old friends there who follows this forum. Thanks to all of you, by the way for your support and opinions. I can't express them here.

Again, I used to tune CW's by the truckload, literally, when I worked for their dealer. How else would I be able to make the comparisons I made? Please do me the courtesy of reading what I post before replying. That you aparently don't may explain a lot.

BTW. I lost my mind thirty years ago by choice, it's a bit like losing sight. All the other perceptions get heightened.

Yours, still bending over backwards but maintaining flexibility,

rXd
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Anybody who has never seen one up close, let alone tuned one or many of them repeatedly can't be expected to know Most tuners have never even seen one, where do they get the arrogance to attempt to expound on them? Can somebody help me understand this madness?

Somebody who has never seen an active newer concert grand up close let alone tuned 7-8 different ones every day cannot be expected to know any of this and, of course their assumptions and suppositions should be disregarded. How can they possibly be expected to know anything??

Will somebody fetch me a cup of tea?
I've not even started yet.
I have too much respect for this readership, this industry and my profession to let this idiocy continue and I'm bending over backwards not to make anybody look stupid.


rXd:

You are taking a small, narrow corner of the tuning world and professing special knowledge that can only be known from experiencing it. You emphasize how these pianos and their use is very different than the rest of the tuning world, that the normal rules don't count and normal tuners don't know what they are talking about in regard to these pianos. This is all probably very true.

By the same token, us mere mortals would know things that you could not possibly know. Old clunkers are a different animal, too.

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?



There you go again. How many times have I said, in previous threads and in this one.
For more than twenty years I was a tuner/tech in rural America, not a coupla hundred miles from where you are currently operating and then further west in the mountains. I haven't forgotten the tin(n)y spinets an big old' clunkers.
You never answered my question whether CW still left the pencil marks on the keys where they marked off the weightings. I got a private text answering it from one of my old friends there who follows this forum. Thanks to all of you, by the way.

Again, I used to tune CW's by the truckload, literally, when I worked for their dealer. How else would I be able to make the comparisons I made? Please do me the courtesy of reading what I post before replying. That you aparently don't may explain a lot.

Yours, still bending over backwards but maintaining flexibility,

rXd


rXd:

You will have to forgive me for not remembering what you said your roots were. From your posts, it seems you have forgotten yourself. Your posts are so much like an ivory tower tuner, I can't imagine you as anything else. If you "lost your mind by choice" (not sure how that is possible...) perhaps you remember your roots far different than they actually were. laugh

As far as my CW, yes there were pencil marks where they installed the leads. The weighting was completely unacceptable. The keys had never been properly eased and they apparently just considered downweight when installing the leads. Some keys would not quite return at all.

I knocked out all the leads, plugged the holes, took care of the friction issues, averaged out the best placement for the leads for the feel my daughter preferred, drew straight lines and installed new ones there.

What they did, individually weighting keys, was poppycock.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Anybody who has never seen one up close, let alone tuned one or many of them repeatedly can't be expected to know Most tuners have never even seen one, where do they get the arrogance to attempt to expound on them? Can somebody help me understand this madness?

Somebody who has never seen an active newer concert grand up close let alone tuned 7-8 different ones every day cannot be expected to know any of this and, of course their assumptions and suppositions should be disregarded. How can they possibly be expected to know anything??

Will somebody fetch me a cup of tea?
I've not even started yet.
I have too much respect for this readership, this industry and my profession to let this idiocy continue and I'm bending over backwards not to make anybody look stupid.


rXd:

You are taking a small, narrow corner of the tuning world and professing special knowledge that can only be known from experiencing it. You emphasize how these pianos and their use is very different than the rest of the tuning world, that the normal rules don't count and normal tuners don't know what they are talking about in regard to these pianos. This is all probably very true.

By the same token, us mere mortals would know things that you could not possibly know. Old clunkers are a different animal, too.

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?



There you go again. How many times have I said, in previous threads and in this one.
For more than twenty years I was a tuner/tech in rural America, not a coupla hundred miles from where you are currently operating and then further west in the mountains. I haven't forgotten the tin(n)y spinets an big old' clunkers.
You never answered my question whether CW still left the pencil marks on the keys where they marked off the weightings. I got a private text answering it from one of my old friends there who follows this forum. Thanks to all of you, by the way.

Again, I used to tune CW's by the truckload, literally, when I worked for their dealer. How else would I be able to make the comparisons I made? Please do me the courtesy of reading what I post before replying. That you aparently don't may explain a lot.

Yours, still bending over backwards but maintaining flexibility,

rXd


rXd:

You will have to forgive me for not remembering what you said your roots were. From your posts, it seems you have forgotten yourself. Your posts are so much like an ivory tower tuner, I can't imagine you as anything else. If you "lost your mind by choice" (not sure how that is possible...) perhaps you remember your roots far different than they actually were. laugh

As far as my CW, yes there were pencil marks where they installed the leads. The weighting was completely unacceptable. The keys had never been properly eased and they apparently just considered downweight when installing the leads. Some keys would not quite return at all.

I knocked out all the leads, plugged the holes, took care of the friction issues, averaged out the best placement for the leads for the feel my daughter preferred, drew straight lines and installed new ones there.

What they did, individually weighting keys, was poppycock.


Jeff,

Some neat saving there. I'm sure we can all agree.

Thank you for sharing what you did with your key weighting. A Lotta guys woulda done it different as one of my many mentors would have said. Perhaps others might risk commenting further.

One of my longtime friends still travels into your bailiwick regularly. I have visited him from time to time.

Small point, Rural America is not my roots, I was 28 when I took out a USA green card. I had enough valuable experience and recommendations to convince your government that I was a worthwhile import. I already had considerable experience doing what I have returned to doing now so my experience of the same pianos was quite different. I do know those pianos, though, I just worked with them differently. I occasionally tune some of those big springy Chinese instruments, by choice, to keep my hand in. They use them on live rock broadcasts so there is still a lot riding on my work.

It was the monkey mind I lost. Like losing sight, it's amazing how clear other perceptions become. How you used that information was very informative to me about you.

Jeff, you don't really think that a store tuner telling you he can't teach you any more is in any wayn a qualification in itself, do you? There could be so many reasons someone might decide to say that.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 03:44 PM
Originally Posted by ando
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner

Aren't you being pompous? Why is your special knowledge more special than normal tuner's special knowledge?


Special knowledge will always be more "special" than normal knowledge - but it may not be more important.


Maybe, but thank you, though.

Pin and NSL setting are very similar in all pianos and similar variations are to be found in all pianos. the same techniques used on a new hamburg D ( they can be quite springy) are remarkably the same as those that achieve good results on any springy piano. I use a different technique on an upright. There are differences between action saturation Vs. soundboard and stringing saturation that makes an upright slightly more forgiving, generally speaking. ... Slightly.

What I post about pin setting is my experience with a lot riding on my work. It can be taken or left alone. I have no attachment to it. I am satisfied that there are enough who, while they find my posts useful, even edifying, they don't post on threads like this one where paranoia leads to unnecessary name calling, but can contact me privately or by PM or "live". Few have my private information.

One of them has gone on to be a fine, nationally recognised concert tuner for a world famous orchestra. Our senior tech regards him as my protégé and thanks me for him when all I did was offer him advice on how to tune for whom and point him in the right direction.

It's occurrences like that that keep me posting. If anybody'd rather I didn't, just say so.

The assumptions that are made, conclusions reached and plain misunderstandings about what i say deserve correction, however and it may get into specifics concerning different instruments which those with no ambition to do anything more than they are doing will find of no importance. That's called self satisfaction and is often accompanied by a vacuous grin.
Don't you at least find it interesting? I know that many do.

If anybody thinks I'm above them in some sort of ivory tower, as Jeff so rightly admits, that's their problem. It always is. Often low self esteem or symptoms of depression. Sometimes drunkenness and even jealousy as one poster has so patently displayed but both are manifestations of the other two major causes.

Just being informative.
Posted By: Tunewerk Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 04:45 PM
This was very funny, Alfredo, and true. smile

Originally Posted by Alfredo
..perhaps one has to be equipped with the right "tools", in order to perceive and/or appreciate a form of perfection whatsoever. I believe many pianists I have met won't have had much time to play with forums, having to concentrate on maturing their art.

Oh, I may well regret to have posted in this thread but, you know, nobody is.. perfect :-)


There's some major disrespect being thrown in this thread by you, Jeff. No one seems to stand up to it, which is puzzling to me. Are we all too polite here?

I'm going to be direct with you. (You said you could take it, remember?) The moderators should have shut this thread down right after it started. It has no substance, other than you complaining about other's opinions, which you proclaim to dismiss as 'poppycock'.

Some things in the piano world are definitely BS, but this thread is more about your opinion being right and trying to discredit others in various, underhanded ways. Simply because you don't understand it, has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. There could not be a more ignorant behaviour.

RXD and your friend Kees have been nothing but kind and patient.. literally bending over backwards to absorb your disrespect but not respond unkindly. You, in return, just spew more abuse and place projection onto others.

It is unacceptable what you are doing here.. and a shame because it drags the forum down. More behaviour like this, and more credible people will just leave.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
...

It was the monkey mind I lost. Like losing sight, it's amazing how clear other perceptions become. How you used that information was very informative to me about you.

Jeff, you don't really think that a store tuner telling you he can't teach you any more is in any way a qualification in itself, do you? There could be so many reasons someone might decide to say that.


You may not appreciate the irony in all this. The lyrics of the song I used as the title to this Topic continue with:

"Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?"


And so you say you did - deliberately! "Monkey mind" or not, I find it hilarious.

And you questioning what my tuning teacher meant, says much about you. But not as much as needing to include that he was [merely?] a store tuner.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 06:17 PM
Originally Posted by Tunewerk
This was very funny, Alfredo, and true. smile

Originally Posted by Alfredo
..perhaps one has to be equipped with the right "tools", in order to perceive and/or appreciate a form of perfection whatsoever. I believe many pianists I have met won't have had much time to play with forums, having to concentrate on maturing their art.

Oh, I may well regret to have posted in this thread but, you know, nobody is.. perfect :-)


There's some major disrespect being thrown in this thread by you, Jeff. No one seems to stand up to it, which is puzzling to me. Are we all too polite here?

I'm going to be direct with you. (You said you could take it, remember?) The moderators should have shut this thread down right after it started. It has no substance, other than you complaining about other's opinions, which you proclaim to dismiss as 'poppycock'.

Some things in the piano world are definitely BS, but this thread is more about your opinion being right and trying to discredit others in various, underhanded ways. Simply because you don't understand it, has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. There could not be a more ignorant behaviour.

RXD and your friend Kees have been nothing but kind and patient.. literally bending over backwards to absorb your disrespect but not respond unkindly. You, in return, just spew more abuse and place projection onto others (that has nothing to do with them).

It is unacceptable what you are doing here.. and a shame because it drags the forum down. More behaviour like this, and more credible people will just leave.


+1

I'm having quite an amusing diversion here, I have no personal attachment to the slings and arrows. A good study in human nature. It's like watching a movie and I can step in and out of the screen at will
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Tunewerk
This was very funny, Alfredo, and true. smile

Originally Posted by Alfredo
..perhaps one has to be equipped with the right "tools", in order to perceive and/or appreciate a form of perfection whatsoever. I believe many pianists I have met won't have had much time to play with forums, having to concentrate on maturing their art.

Oh, I may well regret to have posted in this thread but, you know, nobody is.. perfect :-)


There's some major disrespect being thrown in this thread by you, Jeff. No one seems to stand up to it, which is puzzling to me. Are we all too polite here?

I'm going to be direct with you. (You said you could take it, remember?) The moderators should have shut this thread down right after it started. It has no substance, other than you complaining about other's opinions, which you proclaim to dismiss as 'poppycock'.

Some things in the piano world are definitely BS, but this thread is more about your opinion being right and trying to discredit others in various, underhanded ways. Simply because you don't understand it, has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. There could not be a more ignorant behaviour.

RXD and your friend Kees have been nothing but kind and patient.. literally bending over backwards to absorb your disrespect but not respond unkindly. You, in return, just spew more abuse and place projection onto others.

It is unacceptable what you are doing here.. and a shame because it drags the forum down. More behaviour like this, and more credible people will just leave.


I have not called anyone poppycock. I have called some things people put forth poppycock. Do you understand the difference? I am sure the moderators do.

Disagreeing with someone is not being disrespectful. Expecting someone to "respect their betters" is. And that is what you are doing Tunewerk!
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Tunewerk
[...] your friend Kees have been nothing but kind and patient.. literally bending over backwards to absorb your disrespect but not respond unkindly.

That is a faulty characterization, don't project your personal illusions on me please.

Kees
Posted By: Tunewerk Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
I have not called anyone poppycock. I have called some things people put forth poppycock. Do you understand the difference? I am sure the moderators do.

Disagreeing with someone is not being disrespectful. Expecting someone to "respect their betters" is. And that is what you are doing Tunewerk!


No, that is happening inside of your own head, Jeff. I am not telling you to do anything.

It is always great to question and have a respectful, strong discourse. Argumentative disagreement can be great! But there is a line between good strong discourse and disrespecting/attacking/discrediting others.

You crossed the line here many times, with undermining other people, their opinions, and saying what they thought was 'poppycock'. To that end, you even talked about things you admittedly knew nothing about. In so doing, you were the originator of 'poppycock' yourself.

I'm imploring you to have some self-awareness because you seem to have none.

Originally Posted by Kees
That is a faulty characterization, don't project your personal illusions on me please.


Sorry Kees, I interpreted that incorrectly then.
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

It was the monkey mind I lost. Like losing sight, it's amazing how clear other perceptions become. How you used that information was very informative to me about you.

Jeff, you don't really think that a store tuner telling you he can't teach you any more is in any way a qualification in itself, do you? There could be so many reasons someone might decide to say that.


You may not appreciate the irony in all this. The lyrics of the song I used as the title to this Topic continue with:

"Everybody's talkin' 'bout a new way of walkin'
Do you want to lose your mind?"


And so you say you did - deliberately! "Monkey mind" or not, I find it hilarious.

And you questioning what my tuning teacher meant, says much about you. But not as much as needing to include that he was [merely?] a store tuner.


Of course I was responding to your subheading. I find it hilarious too. ç„¡
is part of your sort of "cleverness". Look at the motiv of this thread. You're 'oist by your own petard. Stop. Think. Be clever. Roll over. Everybody seems to get it but you. Why are we all being tolerant of you? So that you would get over confident and fall into your own trap. Look at your own face on a mirror for ten minutes. Go do it. You will see. There are PM's and texts between the principals in this play. Know thyself.

I was, and still am a mere store tuner when I want to be. I'm also a mere (very much in demand) concert tuner. I know you've read C. S. L. but not deeply enough.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Tunewerk
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
I have not called anyone poppycock. I have called some things people put forth poppycock. Do you understand the difference? I am sure the moderators do.

Disagreeing with someone is not being disrespectful. Expecting someone to "respect their betters" is. And that is what you are doing Tunewerk!


No, that is happening inside of your own head, Jeff. I am not telling you to do anything.

It is always great to question and have a respectful, strong discourse. Argumentative disagreement can be great! But there is a line between good strong discourse and disrespecting/attacking/discrediting others.

You crossed the line here many times, with undermining other people, their opinions, and saying what they thought was 'poppycock'. To that end, you even talked about things you admittedly knew nothing about. In so doing, you were the originator of 'poppycock' yourself.

I'm imploring you to have some self-awareness because you seem to have none.

Originally Posted by Kees
That is a faulty characterization, don't project your personal illusions on me please.


Sorry Kees, I interpreted that incorrectly then.


Please give examples.
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Why are we all being tolerant of you? So that you would get over confident and fall into your own trap.

...


Hmmm, so I was right to suspect your sincerity. Still, it should not change what I do.

I am so glad I chose to have nothing to do with PMs. I know what sort of gossip traps I am tempted by!
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 07:58 PM
You're always right. Of course you are.
Still don't see it?. Read your last half dozen posts. The consecutive ones.
Posted By: DoelKees Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Why are we all being tolerant of you? So that you would get over confident and fall into your own trap.

...


Hmmm, so I was right to suspect your sincerity. Still, it should not change what I do.

I am so glad I chose to have nothing to do with PMs. I know what sort of gossip traps I am tempted by!

Why don't you guys agree to a duel at dawn to settle this? smile

I suspect this will be close to the last post in this thread.

Kees
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 08:15 PM
Originally Posted by rXd
You're always right. Of course you are.
Still don't see it?. Read your last half dozen posts. The consecutive ones.


Then you are sincerely insincere? Well, I do like irony. smile
Posted By: UnrightTooner Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 08:16 PM
Originally Posted by DoelKees
Originally Posted by UnrightTooner
Originally Posted by rXd
...

Why are we all being tolerant of you? So that you would get over confident and fall into your own trap.

...


Hmmm, so I was right to suspect your sincerity. Still, it should not change what I do.

I am so glad I chose to have nothing to do with PMs. I know what sort of gossip traps I am tempted by!

Why don't you guys agree to a duel at dawn to settle this? smile

I suspect this will be close to the last post in this thread.

Kees


Kees:

You are a better man than the rest of us.

It would be folly to agree to a duel with someone that admits treachery.
Posted By: Withindale Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by alfredo capurso
Oh, I may well regret to have posted in this thread but, you know, nobody is.. perfect

Hi Alfredo

Does "essere presoa nelle proprie reti" signify anything in Italian?

No references to fish, please!
Posted By: rXd Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 09:06 PM
Who was it said. "old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill"
I can be anything I choose. I can choose to be treacherous. Difficult to know what to believe, isn't it?

Correction, read your initial posts up to the one that says how gullible those who think they are clever are, then read the consecutive posts where you are trying to fend off all those points that people made that can easily be verified in the text. It's funny but you will never see it unless you look.
then read up to where you betray the agenda behind this whole thread.

She: Do you have a good memory for faces?
He: yes.
She: that's good, I've just broken your shaving mirror.

All seriousness aside. Look at your own face in a mirror for ten minutes. It's quite an experience. Then read through this whole thread and make a note of every time you have called someone a name. Then look up where you denied it. Become honest with yourself first before you make any more denials.

Don't dig your hole deeper. stop digging now.
Posted By: casinitaly Re: Walk right in, sit right down... - 02/07/15 09:42 PM
I would say "get this thread back on topic", except I can't figure out what the real topic is.
Seems to me it started out as a bit of a rant, then turned into a bit of a spoof, but now the only place I see it going is downhill. Rather quickly.
Let's just shut it down before it gets any nastier.

Why don't y'all move on, and have a chat about equal temperament or something?

© Piano World Piano & Digital Piano Forums