consistantly inaccurate(piano)

Paul writes:

<<I think a preference for non-perfect consonance is actually pretty well
established in the musical listening community without needing
experimentation. Consider: piano UNISONS are deliberately mistuned slightly
to enrichen the timbre;>>

Greetings,
The piano unison is tuned in a variety of ways. On the conceptual level,
there is no way to "mistune" them. However, using the example of unisons
that are "enriched" to prove a preference for lack of consonance is a bit of
a stretch! In order for a set of unisons to sound even, some of them may
have to be dead on, others need the three strings tuned in such a way as to
create an image of clarity. This is one difference between an aural tuning
and one that is done strictly by machine. The machine doesn't compensate for
string/termination inequality and the unisons it leaves behind usually sound
inconsistant. If you want them all to sound the same, some of them are going
to be mathematically different when examined.
The Weinriech effect that most tuners utilize is a way of tuning unisons
so that they appear most consonant while still creating more sustain. This
is discussed in his article on the "Coupled Motion of Piano Strings".
What we do is tune the unisons so that they sound their best, and it has
been found that changes in their fundamental pitch on the order of .1 cent is
capable of creating a difference. These "mistuning" are not heard as beats,
or lack of consonance, but rather, as an increas in clarity. Why? Because
the lack of perfection in the partials, and the interaction at the bridge of
slightly out of phase signals "drawing" together. This is very different
from the perceived choral effect that a twelve string creates.
There are examples of pianos with unisons that are evidently beating. The
latest one is a Dr. John cut on his CD "Duke Elegant", in which the last
track is "Flaming Sword". The loose unisons are part of the charm and it
works. Jim Morrison and the Doors also used a piano that sounded like it had
never been tuned, and they sold millions of recordings.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Nashville, Tn.

In a message dated 1/20/01 6:01:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, a440a@aol.com
writes:

> Jim Morrison and the Doors also used a piano that sounded like it had
> never been tuned, and they sold millions of recordings.

Among other great musicians that showed a preference would include:

Charles Ives (described in his Memos)
Modest Mussorgsky (according to Shostokovitch in his Testimonial)
Alban Berg (used in the last act of his opera "Wozzeck")

Johnny Reinhard

Ed Foote wrote:
<a lot of stuff about piano tuning, especially unisons>

You sound like you're a piano tuner? I have a question. An earlier post
brought up the point that when tuning JI intervals it's possible to tune
them "perfectly" since you just eliminate beating and you're done
(essentially). Then it was asserted that it's impossible to get the same
accuracy when tuning ET. I may be wrong, but I thought by counting beats it
was possible to get extremely accurate ET tunings, and that's how it's
usually done. Can you speak on this for a moment? Am I completely wrong?

Todd

--- In tuning@egroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> Paul writes:
>
> <<I think a preference for non-perfect consonance is actually
pretty well
> established in the musical listening community without needing
> experimentation. Consider: piano UNISONS are deliberately mistuned
slightly
> to enrichen the timbre;>>

That wasn't me!!

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Todd Wilcox" <twilcox@p...> wrote:
> Ed Foote wrote:
> <a lot of stuff about piano tuning, especially unisons>
>
> You sound like you're a piano tuner? I have a question. An earlier
post
> brought up the point that when tuning JI intervals it's possible to
tune
> them "perfectly" since you just eliminate beating and you're done
> (essentially).

That doesn't apply to the piano. It does apply to voices, bowed
strings, brass, and reed timbres, since they have perfect harmonic
partials.

Then it was asserted that it's impossible to get the same
> accuracy when tuning ET. I may be wrong, but I thought by counting
beats it
> was possible to get extremely accurate ET tunings, and that's how
it's
> usually done.

Yes, that's correct, but the point is that you can tune JI intervals
with extreme accuracy _without_ counting, and that demonstrates a
significant psychoacoustical difference between JI intervals and
tempered intervals.

Paul writes:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> > Paul writes:
> >
> > <<I think a preference for non-perfect consonance is actually
> pretty well
> > established in the musical listening community without needing
> > experimentation. Consider: piano UNISONS are deliberately mistuned
> slightly
> > to enrichen the timbre;>>
>
> That wasn't me!!
>

True, the paragraph above regarding tuning of unisons on piano is mine. JdL
wrote a knowledgable reply/retort to this.

Todd

Todd asks:
You sound like you're a piano tuner? I have a question. An earlier post
brought up the point that when tuning JI intervals it's possible to tune
them "perfectly" since you just eliminate beating and you're done
(essentially). Then it was asserted that it's impossible to get the same
accuracy when tuning ET. I may be wrong, but I thought by counting beats it
was possible to get extremely accurate ET tunings, and that's how it's
usually done. Can you speak on this for a moment? Am I completely wrong>>

Greetings,
No, not completely wrong, but the truth is being stretched. The
Justness has to be defined by a defined partial congruence. On the piano, the
wire's inharmonic values only allow perfect alignment at one partial meeting,
the others will be slightly off. This means that if an octave is Just at the
2:1, it will be slightly wide at the 4:2 or 6:3 meetings. This is why we
use different sizes of octaves at different places along the pianos span.
As one leaves the temperament octave and goes up, it is necessary to
stretch the octaves fromt their "near 2:1" configuration. By the fifth
octave, the width is between 2:1 and 4:2, and by the 7th octave, if the
individual octaves are not near the 6:3, the double and certainly the triple
octaves will sound flat.
Same goes in the bass, only you flatten the descending octaves, and the
failure to do so doesn't render the bass sounding sharp so much as it makes
the piano sound weak.

Also, to combine another posting under the same heading, Paul writes:
>>the point is that you can tune JI intervals
with extreme accuracy _without_ counting, and that demonstrates a
significant psychoacoustical difference between JI intervals and
tempered intervals. <<

Hmm, how can JI be tuned with extreme accuracy? As two notes approach
Just, there is less information to go on, and at some point it becomes very
difficult to tell if one is slightly narrow or wide. If you attempt to tune
a string of perfect fifths, the cumulative error will historically cause a
bit of shift along the way.
This question is based on acoustic instruments, perhaps a synth with a
numerical readout makes Just an easy target, but when you are tightening
wires, embouchures, or tuning slides, things get a bit difficult to discern
when the beating becomes too slow to register.
Wondering,
Ed Foote

Ed Foote wrote:
> Greetings,
> As one leaves the temperament octave and goes up, it is
> necessary to
> stretch the octaves fromt their "near 2:1" configuration. By
> the fifth
> octave, the width is between 2:1 and 4:2, and by the 7th
> octave, if the
> individual octaves are not near the 6:3, the double and
> certainly the triple
> octaves will sound flat.
> Same goes in the bass, only you flatten the descending
> octaves, and the
> failure to do so doesn't render the bass sounding sharp so
> much as it makes
> the piano sound weak.

Ahhh.. this sounds like you're correcting for a phenomenon I've seen
referred to as "octave drift," where widths of the intervals sound different
at different frequencies due to some auditory phenomenon.
I actually believe one of the distinguishing characteristics of a real
professional musician versus a very very good one is the knowledge (possibly
subconcious) and ability to properly intone across various octaves, and
thereby keep in tune with the whole orchestra.

TOdd

--- In tuning@egroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
>>Paul writes:
> >>the point is that you can tune JI intervals
> with extreme accuracy _without_ counting, and that demonstrates a
> significant psychoacoustical difference between JI intervals and
> tempered intervals. <<
>
> Hmm, how can JI be tuned with extreme accuracy? [...]
> things get a bit difficult to discern
> when the beating becomes too slow to register.

When the beating becomes too slow to register, you've _acheived_ JI in my book (q.v. Dave
Keenan's definition of JI in the happily defunct "definition of JI" debate. This is the kind of JI I was
referring to; if you're using a different definition of JI, yes, then JI can be "just" as hard to tune as
anything.