Jesus, lotta stuff,

Greetings,
Wow! and Whoa! We got harmonic clouds, we got Justness out the wazoo, we
got lotta stuff being thrown around about the value of adherance to absolute
ratios and we got lines drawn between the warm fuzzies and the scientists
that hold onto the Holy Grail of Just perfection......
How important is the absolute ratio? Depends on the perception of the
listeners and the needs of the composer. The former are easily satisfied,
the latter maybe never. Sorta like "one is too many, and a thousand are not
enough".
When we talk about tolerances of .01 cent, we are discussing theoretical
values that have nothing to do with the sensory experience. I don't care what
the instrument is. However, when we talk about .1 cent, then we are into the
realm of the Weinriech effect of piano strings and the differences are
certainly there; (mistuning unisons on a concert grand by this amount per
string, which may result in perhaps a cumulative .2 or .3 cents phase factor
will definately have an effect on sustain).
The same paradigns can be found in organ tuning, where pipes will "draw"
the near pitch toward themselves. Get too close to a ratio and the
instrument will take over.

This response, prompted by François Laferrière asking:

>When tuning instrument with such and such precision in such and such tuning
system (whatever it is

JI or ET). How do you cope with octave stretching in low and high

pitch range.<<

Well, the right amount of stretch depends on the inharmonicity of the
medium and the expectations of the listener.

>I know that the piano tuner who comes home use electronic tuner to set

>pitch in the mid-range and use ear alone for the rest of the keyboard.<

Hmm, sounds like someone that needs a machine for setting the
temperament.

> he said that HE was called specifically by some professionnal jazz pianists
because he his famous in his

tuners team to be the one that "stretch the most" in the high pitch. It is a
matter of psychoacoustic AND of taste.<<

Yes, the "New York Stretch" used by Steinway factory tuners creates a pure
triple octave and pure fifths above the C5, however, it also makes things
rather tense. The major effect of this amount of stretch is that the thirds
become faster, thus, more stimulative. But, like cocaine, it often seems
that more and more is needed to create the same buzz. Some Jazz players I
work for like this, too, (the stretch, not the toot). They keep at it until
everything sounds like it wants to scream. Mozart begins to sound pretty
strained by it.

>> Was this problem known in "historical tuning" ?<<

The historical tuning, as exemplified by the well-temperaments, doesn't
need this so much. The various remote keys, with their busier thirds, are
often used to create the same effect. The biggest consideration is the
contrast between the keys with the smoother thirds and those that have a lot
of "expression", ie, tempering. When you have the intonational palette so
well equipped, the sensual engagement can be created by compositon,which give
more control to the composer rather than the instrument's sound.
It seems to be a shortcoming of ET that the blandness inherent in
sameness can only be ameliorated by excessive stretching. I consider that
avenue necessary only to those that are inured to tonal nuance.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Nashville, Tn.

________________________________________\

--- In tuning@y..., a440a@a... wrote:

> realm of the Weinriech effect of piano strings and the differences
are
> certainly there; (mistuning unisons on a concert grand by this
amount per
> string, which may result in perhaps a cumulative .2 or .3 cents
phase factor
> will definately have an effect on sustain).
> The same paradigns can be found in organ tuning, where pipes
will "draw"
> the near pitch toward themselves. Get too close to a ratio and the
> instrument will take over.

can you please discuss these effects in more detail? i know very
little about them and am very curious to know! are you saying that if
you tune an organ close enough to ji, then certain chords will induce
a sort of galileo (i'm thinking of pendulums on a wall, swinging in
synch with one another) effect, and absolutely pure ji will be the
result? what about pianos or even guitars? please tell more!

> It seems to be a shortcoming of ET that the blandness inherent
in
> sameness can only be ameliorated by excessive stretching.

how does that ameliorate the sameness? isn't the tuning equally
stretched no matter what key you're in?

> I consider that
> avenue necessary only to those that are inured to tonal nuance.

now you're sounding like a tuning list member!

cheers to you ed and thanks . . .

--- In tuning@y..., a440a@a... wrote:

> When we talk about tolerances of .01 cent, we are discussing theoretical
> values that have nothing to do with the sensory experience. I don't care what
> the instrument is. However, when we talk about .1 cent, then we are into the
> realm of the Weinriech effect of piano strings and the differences are
> certainly there; (mistuning unisons on a concert grand by this amount per
> string, which may result in perhaps a cumulative .2 or .3 cents phase factor
> will definately have an effect on sustain).

This is extemely interesting, and is just the sort of thing I was looking for. Where would you personally draw the line for tuning differences which might make an actual difference--can you locate it more precisely than to say between .1 and .01 cents? What about, say,
.03 cents?

> The same paradigns can be found in organ tuning, where pipes will "draw"
> the near pitch toward themselves. Get too close to a ratio and the
> instrument will take over.

Fascinating. Is there a name for this? It sounds as if you are saying an organ might adaptively tune itself if you use a mictrotemperament tuning.

Greetings,
I wrote:

>> When we talk about tolerances of .01 cent, we are discussing theoretical
>> values that have nothing to do with the sensory experience. I don't care
>what the instrument is. However, when we talk about .1 cent, then we are
>into the realm of the Weinriech effect of piano strings and the differences
are
> certainly there; (mistuning unisons on a concert grand by this amount
>per string, which may result in perhaps a cumulative .2 or .3 cents phase
>factor will definately have an effect on sustain).

Gene asks:
>This is extemely interesting, and is just the sort of thing I was looking
>for. Where would you personally draw the line for tuning differences which
>might make an actual difference--can you locate it more precisely than
>to say between .1 and .01 cents? What about, say,
> .03 cents?

We have to ask ourselves, first, to "make an actual difference" in what?
The pitch, the sustain or the apparent clarity of the resulting note? The
sustain and clarity can be noticeably altered by discrepancies of .1 to .3
cents, the pitch will need more to actually sound altered.
My machine,(a Sanderson Accu-tuner) is accurate to .1 cent, but that
doesn't completely address the answer, since piano strings can't usually be
played that accurately. When the hammer first hits them, the oscillation
amplitude initially creates a "tighter" string and the pitch will be higher.
After a second or so, things will drop a certain amount into more of a steady
state. .1 cent is smaller than this temporal shift's range, so an amount of
mistuning that "makes a difference" in the sustain may not have much effect
on the sensation of pitch and no effect at all on the shorter duration note.
Thus, .1 is the limit to my measurement accuracy and I don't know if smaller
gradations are of practical use.
The mistuning that I have measured in my unison attempts rarely gets
beyond .3 cents, and then only when I have a string problem. (Tuners can
"bury" extraneous string misbehaviour by mistuning one or two of the three
strings in a unison and letting the phasing act as an aural "veneer" to
create the impression of clarity). When all three strings are exactly the
same,(to an amount smaller than .1), the energy "dump" is more immediate than
when they have enough out of phase to stiffen the bridge and increase the
sustain. See the Weinreich article in
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/
It is usual to have .1 or .2 cents in there, either between two strings
that are each .1 cent away from a common point, or often, one string that is
.2 cents away from the other two which are matched. This is why I tune two
strings of the unison to the machine then aurally place the third. It
creates a more consistant set of unisons in terms of sustain and sound
quality.

>> The same paradigns can be found in organ tuning, where pipes will
>"draw" the near pitch toward themselves. Get too close to a ratio and the
> instrument will take over.

>Fascinating. Is there a name for this? It sounds as if you are saying an
>organ might adaptively tune itself if you use a mictrotemperament tuning.

I think the term is "drawing" and results from physical proximity of one
pipe to another in the ranks. It is mostly a phenomenon that affects like
notes on different ranks, so that when tuning one rank to another as unisons,
the distance between the pipes can have an effect on accuracy.

> It seems to be a shortcoming of ET that the blandness inherent

>in sameness can only be ameliorated by excessive stretching.

Paul asks:

how does that ameliorate the sameness? isn't the tuning equally

stretched no matter what key you're in?

Yes, all keys are equally stretched, but I was trying to address why ET
so often seems to need more "stretch" than a well-temperament to create the
same amount of audience engagement. In ET was stretching creates a
stimulative direction of increasing tenseness as the pitches go up the scale.
This supposedly creates "sparkle" or brilliance in the ear of the
listener,(at least, so I am told). The unequal tunings create a stimulative
response by presenting various levels of dissonance in contrast to more
consonant sounds. This harmonic texture seems to be more psycho-emotively
effective than ever-increasing sharpness.
As to the Bosendorfer of La Mont Young, it was my understanding that it
was the Imperial, which is larger than the normal concert grand and that it
also has 97 keys. The lowest strings have fundamentals below 27 Hz and are
there to stabilize the bridge at its bottom range. There is no way to add
string diameter sufficient to allow an octave lower pitch on a piano, the
inharmonicity would be huge!
Regards,
Ed Foote
Nashville, Tn.

--- In tuning@y..., a440a@a... wrote:
> We have to ask ourselves, first, to "make an actual difference"
in what?
> The pitch, the sustain or the apparent clarity of the resulting
note? The
> sustain and clarity can be noticeably altered by discrepancies of .1
to .3
> cents, the pitch will need more to actually sound altered.

Thanks for that Ed. That's the clearest statement we've had yet from
someone who should know. Just in case it's not clear to everyone, I
understand Ed to be saying:

The pitch would need to be changed by _more_ than 0.3 cents to
actually sound altered in pitch.

Is it possible to be more specific than that? Can you put an upper
bound? What's the smallest mistuning that you can definitely hear
_as_ a mistuning? And of course we're talking about a tuning situation
here where you can take as long as you like, not a playing situation.

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., a440a@a... wrote:

> > We have to ask ourselves, first, to "make an actual difference"
> in what?
> > The pitch, the sustain or the apparent clarity of the resulting
> note? The
> > sustain and clarity can be noticeably altered by discrepancies of .1
> to .3
> > cents, the pitch will need more to actually sound altered.

> The pitch would need to be changed by _more_ than 0.3 cents to
> actually sound altered in pitch.

Why is that the crucial question? If a change of 0.2 cents could change *anything*, then it is significant. I understand Ed to be saying his own personal lower limit is 0.1 cents, or possibly less.

> Is it possible to be more specific than that? Can you put an upper
> bound? What's the smallest mistuning that you can definitely hear
> _as_ a mistuning?

I would ask, what's the smallest mistuning that makes any difference whatever?

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., a440a@a... wrote:
>
> > > We have to ask ourselves, first, to "make an actual
difference"
> > in what?
> > > The pitch, the sustain or the apparent clarity of the resulting
> > note? The
> > > sustain and clarity can be noticeably altered by discrepancies
of .1
> > to .3
> > > cents, the pitch will need more to actually sound altered.
>
> > The pitch would need to be changed by _more_ than 0.3 cents to
> > actually sound altered in pitch.
>
> Why is that the crucial question? If a change of 0.2 cents could
change *anything*, then it is significant. I understand Ed to be
saying his own personal lower limit is 0.1 cents, or possibly less.
>

Ed is talking about the tuning of the multiple strings for a
_single_note_ on a piano. This is not generally applicable to other
instruments. Tiny mistunings will not usually change the timbre or
sustain of a single string, or column of air, or electronic
oscillator. The only thing it _could_ change in those cases is the
pitch.

For microtemperament purposes we're interested in mistuning
_between_notes_, and what is barely perceptible. And we must also
consider that "barely perceptible while tuning", is _far_ smaller than
"barely perceptible when music is being played". I estimate by a
factor of between 4 and 10.