piano tuning question

I was wondering if anybody had any commentary on this...

Back when I was in college, about 1970 or so... (I was, of course, in
diapers at that time, being a little precocious) I was taught tuning
at the University of Michigan school of music under the admirable
guidance of herr Kurt Pickett, a wonderful German gentleman, who
taught us the "German A" method. Ach!

However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in piano
tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc., and
then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...

Was the practice of "stretched octaves" and all the intricacies of
that a later development than around 1970, or was our tutelage at
that time just skimping a bit on the details??

??

________ _______ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any commentary on this...
>
> Back when I was in college, about 1970 or so... (I was, of course,
in
> diapers at that time, being a little precocious) I was taught
tuning
> at the University of Michigan school of music under the admirable
> guidance of herr Kurt Pickett, a wonderful German gentleman, who
> taught us the "German A" method. Ach!
>
> However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in
piano
> tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc., and
> then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...

Just 1200-cent octaves? How do you tune those?
>
> Was the practice of "stretched octaves" and all the intricacies of
> that a later development than around 1970, or was our tutelage at
> that time just skimping a bit on the details??
>
> ??

Joseph, typically, in the middle and high ranges of the piano, you
tune octaves by eliminating the beating between the 2nd partial of
the lower note and the fundamental of the higher note. This will
result, not in a just 1200-cent octave, but a _stretched_ octave, due
to the inharmonicity of piano strings. In lower ranges, it's typical
to tune the 4th partial of the lower note to the 2nd partial of the
higher note, and in the lowest ranges, the 6th partial of the lower
note to the 3rd partial of the higher note. This is because the
partials in these ranges contribute more to the sense of "in-tune/out-
of-tune" than do the lower partials of these low notes.

Hi, Joseph! Bob Wendell here. My apologies for the recent inactivity
in this group. It had gotten a bit addictive as others have noted and
I have had to attend to myriad other things.

On your question, the stretched octave is not a recent innovation. It
is done, as you must know, because of the inharmonicity of piano
strings, notably the shorter high strings where the stiffness is
relatively high as related to string length.

My father, among many other things, was an ace piano tuner..always
standard 12-tET tuning, though. He could set the temperament and tune
impeccably in one hour flat! His tunings would hold extremely well
for amazingly long times, too, if the instrument was decent.
Unbelievably skilled with the hammer.

He taught me to tune when I was in high school (late 50s to early
60s). His trick was to tune the upper octaves using both the lower
octave and the fourth above it as references to set the upper
octave. He would alternate back and forth between the lower octave
and the fourth as references for tuning the upper octave.

Since the fourths are sharp in 12-tET, this cumulatively biases the
tuning upwards as you move higher. The inharmonicity is a bit tricky,
though, for the human ear used to tuning just octaves down lower (and
essentially just fourths and fifths timing slow beats around the
middle C range and even slower moving down into the bass region). The
octave reference therefore serves as a backup check.

The alternation between the lower octave and the fourth above it
provides a continual reality check on just how much stretch is
enough. The fourths can put you out of touch with the tuning enough
to skew you too far "north" on the octaves even with the
inharmonicity unless you use the octave check to ensure that you're
remaining within the bounds of a good clean tuning.

Hope this is a useful answer. Your teacher may have intuitively done
the same thing without this technique, perhaps without even realizing
it. Then again he may have realized it, but since he may not have had
such a technique to truncate the need for the otherwise long
experience needed to develop his intuitive approach, he may have
considered it too subtle a point to teach within the allotted time.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> I was wondering if anybody had any commentary on this...
>
> Back when I was in college, about 1970 or so... (I was, of course,
in
> diapers at that time, being a little precocious) I was taught
tuning
> at the University of Michigan school of music under the admirable
> guidance of herr Kurt Pickett, a wonderful German gentleman, who
> taught us the "German A" method. Ach!
>
> However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in
piano
> tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc., and
> then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...
>
> Was the practice of "stretched octaves" and all the intricacies of
> that a later development than around 1970, or was our tutelage at
> that time just skimping a bit on the details??
>
> ??
>
> ________ _______ ________
> Joseph Pehrson

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

> > However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in
> piano
> > tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc., and
> > then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...
>
> Just 1200-cent octaves? How do you tune those?

Make them beatless?

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paul Erlich <paul@s...>
>
> > > However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in
> > piano
> > > tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc.,
and
> > > then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...
> >
> > Just 1200-cent octaves? How do you tune those?
>
> Make them beatless?
>
Not on a piano. A piano has stretched partials.

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

> --- In tuning@y..., "David Beardsley" <davidbeardsley@b...> wrote:

> > > Just 1200-cent octaves? How do you tune those?
> >
> > Make them beatless?
> >
> Not on a piano. A piano has stretched partials.

Eh...OK.

* David Beardsley
* http://biink.com
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27881.html#27884

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > I was wondering if anybody had any commentary on this...
> >
> > Back when I was in college, about 1970 or so... (I was, of
course,
> in
> > diapers at that time, being a little precocious) I was taught
> tuning
> > at the University of Michigan school of music under the admirable
> > guidance of herr Kurt Pickett, a wonderful German gentleman, who
> > taught us the "German A" method. Ach!
> >
> > However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in
> piano
> > tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc.,
and
> > then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...
>
> Just 1200-cent octaves? How do you tune those?
> >
> > Was the practice of "stretched octaves" and all the intricacies
of
> > that a later development than around 1970, or was our tutelage at
> > that time just skimping a bit on the details??
> >
> > ??
>
> Joseph, typically, in the middle and high ranges of the piano, you
> tune octaves by eliminating the beating between the 2nd partial of
> the lower note and the fundamental of the higher note. This will
> result, not in a just 1200-cent octave, but a _stretched_ octave,
due
> to the inharmonicity of piano strings. In lower ranges, it's
typical
> to tune the 4th partial of the lower note to the 2nd partial of the
> higher note, and in the lowest ranges, the 6th partial of the lower
> note to the 3rd partial of the higher note. This is because the
> partials in these ranges contribute more to the sense of "in-
tune/out-
> of-tune" than do the lower partials of these low notes.

Hi Paul...

Well, this was, obviously, a level of sophistication that wasn't
taught at that time... or at least in *those* classes... or at least
*consciously...*

We just set the temperament in the middle octave between A3 and A4
and then, once that was done, we simply tuned "flat" or eliminated
all the beats going up and down.

Now if what you are inferring is that eliminating beats would
NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials, than, I
guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??

Thanks, Paul!

________ ______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27881.html#27885

>
> Hope this is a useful answer. Your teacher may have intuitively
done the same thing without this technique, perhaps without even
realizing it. Then again he may have realized it, but since he may
not have had such a technique to truncate the need for the otherwise
long experience needed to develop his intuitive approach, he may have
> considered it too subtle a point to teach within the allotted time.
>

Hi Bob!

Thanks so much for your response. It seems like, quite possibly, it
would be the latter... We were all having just enough trouble just
setting the temperament for the middle octave!

best,

_________ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Jay here,
I was taught pianotuning in the mid '50's and octave stretching was
assumed, however our teacher emphasized that stretching them "consciously"
was iffy since the enharmonicity of the strings would guarantee hte proper
stretch most of the time. Mostly, any stretching was to insure that the
4ths and 5ths in the treble would be less wild. In the bass the stretching
was just enough to make sure that the lower note projected better.
At 07:56 PM 9/5/01 -0000, you wrote:
>I was wondering if anybody had any commentary on this...
>
>Back when I was in college, about 1970 or so... (I was, of course, in
>diapers at that time, being a little precocious) I was taught tuning
>at the University of Michigan school of music under the admirable
>guidance of herr Kurt Pickett, a wonderful German gentleman, who
>taught us the "German A" method. Ach!
>
>However, the idea of "stretched octaves" was never broached in piano
>tuning class. We set the temperament according to beats, etc., and
>then just copied from one octave to another by just octaves...
>
>Was the practice of "stretched octaves" and all the intricacies of
>that a later development than around 1970, or was our tutelage at
>that time just skimping a bit on the details??
>
>??
>
>________ _______ ________
>Joseph Pehrson
>
>
>
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27881.html#27899

> Jay here,
> I was taught pianotuning in the mid '50's and octave stretching was
> assumed, however our teacher emphasized that stretching
them "consciously" was iffy since the enharmonicity of the strings
would guarantee hte proper stretch most of the time.

Hi Jay!

I was wondering if that wasn't the case...

Mostly, any stretching was to insure that the
> 4ths and 5ths in the treble would be less wild. In the bass the
stretching was just enough to make sure that the lower note projected
better.

Thanks, Jay, for your response!

__________ ________ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> Now if what you are inferring is that eliminating beats would
> NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials, than, I
> guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
> stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??

Yes!

In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > Now if what you are implying is that eliminating beats would
> > NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials, then, I
> > guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
> > stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??
>
Paul:
> Yes!

Bob Wendell here. Agreed! But with a slight caveat. This concept
ceases to have much value in the extreme high range. I thought Ed
Foot's reply was excellent and quite exhaustive.

It seems to me that tuning the top octaves is a much more subjective
skill requiring considerably more experience to do well than the
middle octaves. Tuning by beats is essentially useless up there, and
one must listen and test for "roughness vs. smoothness" in various
ways to make the optimum tradeoffs as Ed points out so well.

The use of the lower octave and the cumulative effect of using the
fourth above it (a fifth below the upper octave) has the advantage of
helping to divorce the ear from a sense of "justness" inappropriate
to the piano string inharmonicity (not enharmonicity; different
meaning entirely, whoever spelled it that way). On the other hand,
the octave helps counterbalance and cross-check so the stretch is not
excessive, avoiding consequent destruction of harmonic integrity as
Ed also warns against.

We must always assume cross-checks on the integrity of the
temperament with chromatically successive parallel thirds to hold us
on track from the lower mid-range all the way to the top.

A footnote on a related, but somewhat different tuning angle:

The stretching of octaves can easily lead us into excesses based on
faulty information, based in turn on inadequate ear training. The
well-known and often-quoted research on the relationship of pitch to
frequency, citing the tendency of the human ear, independent of the
inharmonicity of piano strings, to stretch frequency in both
directions from the mid-range is, in my humble opinion, fundamentally
flawed.

The very significant problem of the relevance of ear training in the
subjects used for this research is not typically addressed. (Ear
training as used here is from a tuning perspective and not simply in
terms of interval recognition, sight singing, etc.) I propose that we
cannot expect non-musicians or musicians not trained in reliably
recognizing just harmonies to give musically valid results for any
such research. The non-musical laiety especially, cannot be relied
upon to provide anything but information on how poorly untrained ears
correlate pitch and frequency.

The whole basis of just tuning, as we well know here, is in the whole-
number relationships between and among objective FREQUENCIES rather
than some subjective and even musically naive sense of pitch. Over
time, musical ears with good training in the art and science of
tuning learn to correlate pitch much more accurately with frequency
than these studies typically represent. I generally find the research
referred to here much more indicative of the sad state of ear
training in the subjects than of any information musicians can
productively use to contribute to their art.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > >
> > > Now if what you are implying is that eliminating beats would
> > > NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials, then,
I
> > > guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
> > > stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??
> >
> Paul:
> > Yes!
>
> Bob Wendell here. Agreed! But with a slight caveat. This concept
> ceases to have much value in the extreme high range.

That's true and I've experienced that myself when tuning my piano. I
had to use "judgment", i.e., my musical ear, to tune octaves in that
range . . . beating was inevitable.
>
> It seems to me that tuning the top octaves is a much more
subjective
> skill requiring considerably more experience to do well than the
> middle octaves. Tuning by beats is essentially useless up there,
and
> one must listen and test for "roughness vs. smoothness" in various
> ways to make the optimum tradeoffs as Ed points out so well.

I simply go by melodic rightness there. It's almost like tuning a set
of wind chimes at that point.
>
>
> The stretching of octaves can easily lead us into excesses based on
> faulty information, based in turn on inadequate ear training. The
> well-known and often-quoted research on the relationship of pitch
to
> frequency, citing the tendency of the human ear, independent of the
> inharmonicity of piano strings, to stretch frequency in both
> directions from the mid-range is, in my humble opinion,
fundamentally
> flawed.

Well -- that research is based on sine waves, and the typical
stretching implied is 9 cents in the middle ranges, more in the
extremes. But once partials enter the picture, they overwhelm this
effect in importance, and for the most part, it's the partials that
need to be obeyed, not this effect.
>
> The very significant problem of the relevance of ear training in
the
> subjects used for this research is not typically addressed. (Ear
> training as used here is from a tuning perspective and not simply
in
> terms of interval recognition, sight singing, etc.) I propose that
we
> cannot expect non-musicians or musicians not trained in reliably
> recognizing just harmonies to give musically valid results for any
> such research.

Well that leaves us in a scientific quagmire of circular reasoning,
doesn't it? No, I think results based upon musically untrained
subjects are very important.

> The non-musical laiety especially, cannot be relied
> upon to provide anything but information on how poorly untrained
ears
> correlate pitch and frequency.
>
> The whole basis of just tuning, as we well know here, is in the
whole-
> number relationships between and among objective FREQUENCIES rather
> than some subjective and even musically naive sense of pitch.

To me, this is a very poor "justification" for a tuning system.
Instead, I appeal to three psychoacoutic phenomena that, to different
degrees, favor simple whole-number relationships:

1) Beating and roughness
2) Virtual pitch and tonalness
3) Combinational tones

These phenomena can all be studied in musically untrained subjects
and conclusions can be drawn on what tuning systems are likely to be
effective, factoring out training biases.

> Over
> time, musical ears with good training in the art and science of
> tuning learn to correlate pitch much more accurately with frequency
> than these studies typically represent.

Yes, you can learn to do so, but you are biasing your judgments with
numerical feedback in order to get there.

> I generally find the research
> referred to here much more indicative of the sad state of ear
> training in the subjects than of any information musicians can
> productively use to contribute to their art.

I think you're completely misunderstanding the "research referred to
here". First, have you ever tested your own judgment of melodic
octaves with sine waves? Blindly and honestly? Second, with harmonic
timbres, no academic studies ever found nearly as much preference for
stretching as this.

Hi, Paul! Nice to hear from you again. Egg on my face! I should have
prefaced my remarks with more context. I have heard these studies
cited as a justification or rationale for stretching octaves much
more than string harmonicity would ever merit. I'm warning against
this. That is all.

I think it is fallacious to cite such studies in that context,
whether with sine waves and melodic intervals, or rich harmonicity of
timbre and harmonic intervals. It simply does not apply.

I agree also that the criteria you cite leading to the preference for
integer rations between frequencies are prmary and the conclusion
secondary, but I'm in the habit of more or less taking the conclusion
for granted and starting from there, since I deal chiefly with the
human voice, an instrument known to possess a very high degree of
harmonicity. I know this is rather provincial in viewpoint, but
that's where I fit into the practical musical world I live in.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now if what you are implying is that eliminating beats would
> > > > NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials,
then,
> I
> > > > guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
> > > > stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??
> > >
> > Paul:
> > > Yes!
> >
> > Bob Wendell here. Agreed! But with a slight caveat. This concept
> > ceases to have much value in the extreme high range.
>
> That's true and I've experienced that myself when tuning my piano.
I
> had to use "judgment", i.e., my musical ear, to tune octaves in
that
> range . . . beating was inevitable.
> >
> > It seems to me that tuning the top octaves is a much more
> subjective
> > skill requiring considerably more experience to do well than the
> > middle octaves. Tuning by beats is essentially useless up there,
> and
> > one must listen and test for "roughness vs. smoothness" in
various
> > ways to make the optimum tradeoffs as Ed points out so well.
>
> I simply go by melodic rightness there. It's almost like tuning a
set
> of wind chimes at that point.
> >
> >
> > The stretching of octaves can easily lead us into excesses based
on
> > faulty information, based in turn on inadequate ear training. The
> > well-known and often-quoted research on the relationship of pitch
> to
> > frequency, citing the tendency of the human ear, independent of
the
> > inharmonicity of piano strings, to stretch frequency in both
> > directions from the mid-range is, in my humble opinion,
> fundamentally
> > flawed.
>
> Well -- that research is based on sine waves, and the typical
> stretching implied is 9 cents in the middle ranges, more in the
> extremes. But once partials enter the picture, they overwhelm this
> effect in importance, and for the most part, it's the partials that
> need to be obeyed, not this effect.
> >
> > The very significant problem of the relevance of ear training in
> the
> > subjects used for this research is not typically addressed. (Ear
> > training as used here is from a tuning perspective and not simply
> in
> > terms of interval recognition, sight singing, etc.) I propose
that
> we
> > cannot expect non-musicians or musicians not trained in reliably
> > recognizing just harmonies to give musically valid results for
any
> > such research.
>
> Well that leaves us in a scientific quagmire of circular reasoning,
> doesn't it? No, I think results based upon musically untrained
> subjects are very important.
>
> > The non-musical laiety especially, cannot be relied
> > upon to provide anything but information on how poorly untrained
> ears
> > correlate pitch and frequency.
> >
> > The whole basis of just tuning, as we well know here, is in the
> whole-
> > number relationships between and among objective FREQUENCIES
rather
> > than some subjective and even musically naive sense of pitch.
>
> To me, this is a very poor "justification" for a tuning system.
> Instead, I appeal to three psychoacoutic phenomena that, to
different
> degrees, favor simple whole-number relationships:
>
> 1) Beating and roughness
> 2) Virtual pitch and tonalness
> 3) Combinational tones
>
> These phenomena can all be studied in musically untrained subjects
> and conclusions can be drawn on what tuning systems are likely to
be
> effective, factoring out training biases.
>
> > Over
> > time, musical ears with good training in the art and science of
> > tuning learn to correlate pitch much more accurately with
frequency
> > than these studies typically represent.
>
> Yes, you can learn to do so, but you are biasing your judgments
with
> numerical feedback in order to get there.
>
> > I generally find the research
> > referred to here much more indicative of the sad state of ear
> > training in the subjects than of any information musicians can
> > productively use to contribute to their art.
>
> I think you're completely misunderstanding the "research referred
to
> here". First, have you ever tested your own judgment of melodic
> octaves with sine waves? Blindly and honestly? Second, with
harmonic
> timbres, no academic studies ever found nearly as much preference
for
> stretching as this.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Hi, Paul! Nice to hear from you again. Egg on my face! I should
have
> prefaced my remarks with more context. I have heard these studies
> cited as a justification or rationale for stretching octaves much
> more than string harmonicity would ever merit.

You have? From whom, or what source?

> I'm warning against
> this. That is all.

Then I agree.
>
> I think it is fallacious to cite such studies in that context,
> whether with sine waves and melodic intervals, or rich harmonicity
of
> timbre and harmonic intervals.

Meaning you think neither set of circumstances has much relevance for
piano strings, which are neither sine waves nor perfectly harmonic?

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27881.html#27945

> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Now if what you are implying is that eliminating beats would
> > > > NATURALLY involve lining up those corresponding partials,
then,
> I
> > > > guess, that would be what we did, and the octaves would be
> > > > stretched "naturally!" Is that the implication in this??
> > >
> > Paul:
> > > Yes!
> >
> > Bob Wendell here. Agreed! But with a slight caveat. This concept
> > ceases to have much value in the extreme high range.
>
> That's true and I've experienced that myself when tuning my piano.
I
> had to use "judgment", i.e., my musical ear, to tune octaves in
that
> range . . . beating was inevitable.
> >
> > It seems to me that tuning the top octaves is a much more
> subjective
> > skill requiring considerably more experience to do well than the
> > middle octaves. Tuning by beats is essentially useless up there,
> and
> > one must listen and test for "roughness vs. smoothness" in
various
> > ways to make the optimum tradeoffs as Ed points out so well.
>
> I simply go by melodic rightness there. It's almost like tuning a
set
> of wind chimes at that point.
> >
> >
> > The stretching of octaves can easily lead us into excesses based
on
> > faulty information, based in turn on inadequate ear training. The
> > well-known and often-quoted research on the relationship of pitch
> to
> > frequency, citing the tendency of the human ear, independent of
the
> > inharmonicity of piano strings, to stretch frequency in both
> > directions from the mid-range is, in my humble opinion,
> fundamentally
> > flawed.
>
> Well -- that research is based on sine waves, and the typical
> stretching implied is 9 cents in the middle ranges, more in the
> extremes. But once partials enter the picture, they overwhelm this
> effect in importance, and for the most part, it's the partials that
> need to be obeyed, not this effect.
> >
> > The very significant problem of the relevance of ear training in
> the
> > subjects used for this research is not typically addressed. (Ear
> > training as used here is from a tuning perspective and not simply
> in
> > terms of interval recognition, sight singing, etc.) I propose
that
> we
> > cannot expect non-musicians or musicians not trained in reliably
> > recognizing just harmonies to give musically valid results for
any
> > such research.
>
> Well that leaves us in a scientific quagmire of circular reasoning,
> doesn't it? No, I think results based upon musically untrained
> subjects are very important.
>
> > The non-musical laiety especially, cannot be relied
> > upon to provide anything but information on how poorly untrained
> ears
> > correlate pitch and frequency.
> >
> > The whole basis of just tuning, as we well know here, is in the
> whole-
> > number relationships between and among objective FREQUENCIES
rather
> > than some subjective and even musically naive sense of pitch.
>
> To me, this is a very poor "justification" for a tuning system.
> Instead, I appeal to three psychoacoutic phenomena that, to
different
> degrees, favor simple whole-number relationships:
>
> 1) Beating and roughness
> 2) Virtual pitch and tonalness
> 3) Combinational tones
>
> These phenomena can all be studied in musically untrained subjects
> and conclusions can be drawn on what tuning systems are likely to
be
> effective, factoring out training biases.
>
> > Over
> > time, musical ears with good training in the art and science of
> > tuning learn to correlate pitch much more accurately with
frequency
> > than these studies typically represent.
>
> Yes, you can learn to do so, but you are biasing your judgments
with
> numerical feedback in order to get there.
>
> > I generally find the research
> > referred to here much more indicative of the sad state of ear
> > training in the subjects than of any information musicians can
> > productively use to contribute to their art.
>
> I think you're completely misunderstanding the "research referred
to
> here". First, have you ever tested your own judgment of melodic
> octaves with sine waves? Blindly and honestly? Second, with
harmonic
> timbres, no academic studies ever found nearly as much preference
for
> stretching as this.

This is a *very* interesting discussion, but I'm not totally
understanding it. I'm *still* finding it very interesting! :)

The implication here is that Bob Wendell is saying that untrained
listeners cannot correlate true frequency relationships because their
sense of pitch is not developed enough??

And, because they have an underdeveloped sense of pitch they tend
to "mis hear" the octaves, so they "stretch" it??

But then, Paul seems to feel that untrained subjects are
valuable "guinea pigs" for whatever reason... I believe studies on
untrained listeners had the result that thirds and octaves were
*stretched* in certain circumstances, yes??

This is a *very* interesting discussion, but I feel as though I was
listening to a "party line" and missed half the conversation.

Could either Bob or Paul please explain to me this debate a bit more
so it's a little less like "swiss cheeze" and a little more like
Camenbert??

I need a little background... thanks!

________ ________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > Hi, Paul! Nice to hear from you again. Egg on my face! I should
> have
> > prefaced my remarks with more context. I have heard these studies
> > cited as a justification or rationale for stretching octaves much
> > more than string harmonicity would ever merit.
>
> You have? From whom, or what source?

Bob answers:
From a magazine article by a west coast piano tuner using electronic
tuning to play with various levels of stretch. He really liked
extreme stretch for romantic works especially, well beyond what is
justifiable on the basis of piano string inharmonicity by his own
declaration. This was over a year ago and I recall neither the
magazine (a photocopy of the article from a friend) nor the author.

>
> > I'm warning against
> > this. That is all.
>
> Then I agree.
> >
> > I think it is fallacious to cite such studies in that context,
> > whether with sine waves and melodic intervals, or rich
harmonicity
> of
> > timbre and harmonic intervals.
>
> Meaning you think neither set of circumstances has much relevance
for
> piano strings, which are neither sine waves nor perfectly harmonic?

Bob answers:
Precisely, my friend! I do believe we are agreeing again.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> This is a *very* interesting discussion, but I feel as though I was
> listening to a "party line" and missed half the conversation.
>
> Could either Bob or Paul please explain to me this debate a bit
more
> so it's a little less like "swiss cheeze" and a little more like
> Camenbert??
>
> I need a little background... thanks!
>

Well, Joseph, if you're really interested, it's all there in the
archives, you shouldn't be missing any of the conversation.

But in this case, as in so many others, it subsequently turned out
that Bob Wendell and I were in _complete agreement_, and the apparent
disagreements were just the usual misunderstandings that go with
discussions in this medium.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_27881.html#28019

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> >
> > This is a *very* interesting discussion, but I feel as though I
was
> > listening to a "party line" and missed half the conversation.
> >
> > Could either Bob or Paul please explain to me this debate a bit
> more
> > so it's a little less like "swiss cheeze" and a little more like
> > Camenbert??
> >
> > I need a little background... thanks!
> >
>
> Well, Joseph, if you're really interested, it's all there in the
> archives, you shouldn't be missing any of the conversation.
>
> But in this case, as in so many others, it subsequently turned out
> that Bob Wendell and I were in _complete agreement_, and the
apparent
> disagreements were just the usual misunderstandings that go with
> discussions in this medium.

Hi Paul!

Yes, this is true for much of your discussion, but I was referring
more to the most recent one...

In that one Bob Wendell seemed to feel that *trained* musicians were
better able to correlate frequency with pitch, and figure out whether
things were concordant or not...

HOWEVER, *your* argument was that *untrained* subjects were of least
as great an interest. This argument, actually, is echoed in
Sethares, who seems to feel, as you probably know, that *trained*
subjects "distort" the results to conform to their musical
preconceptions...

That was the discussion I wanted to hear more about...

Thanks

_______ ________ _____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Hi Paul!
>
> Yes, this is true for much of your discussion, but I was referring
> more to the most recent one...

That wasn't the most recent one . . . check the archives again. There
have been some more.
>
> In that one Bob Wendell seemed to feel that *trained* musicians
were
> better able to correlate frequency with pitch, and figure out
whether
> things were concordant or not...
>
> HOWEVER, *your* argument was that *untrained* subjects were of
least
> as great an interest. This argument, actually, is echoed in
> Sethares, who seems to feel, as you probably know, that *trained*
> subjects "distort" the results to conform to their musical
> preconceptions...
>
> That was the discussion I wanted to hear more about...
>
> Thanks

Well, there's not much I can add to what you wrote above . . . do you
have any specific questions? I can add this: I'd like to entertain
untrained listeners (I do it quite a lot, actually).