i tuned my piano

with a guitar tuner

(sounds ok)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#43987

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> with a guitar tuner
>
> (sounds ok)

***I tried to do that once, rather than the *conventional* way and
failed miserably. Somehow I couldn't relate the piano timbre to the
timbre of the buzzing tuner... Maybe the *inharmonic* nature of it?
Dunno...

Joseph

To Joseph, I am beginning to understand that there is a danger to pitch
accuracy in the transference from one pitch source to another. I spent so many
years finding bassoon fingerings with the Korg tuners--which also had an arrow to
give feedback--that I haven't thought about this difficulty much. I
certainly have the problem with tuning the lowest of the piano strings. More
recently, I noticed a guitarist confidently tuning to a harmonic, but actually missing
the pitch on another string.

Recently, I tuned a spinet for a friend of mine as a wedding present. I used
a tuner to check that I was in the right vicinity, but used my ears as the
final arbiter. A big challenge was to get between some of the strings because
the spinet design makes it very difficult. (I wanted to get bell-like tones.)
I found I could use Bic pen caps to separate the strings, even better than
the usual black rubber wedges (realized when I dropped the wedge into the spinet
and couldn't recover it). Instead of the felt (which I had with me) I used a
long, thin, rounded rubber eraser...about a foot and a half long. It was
easy to maneuver.

I tuned pure octaves, refusing to accept blindly that the stretched octaves
"improve" the sound. And I didn't count beats. It worked out quite well,
though there was some immediate slippage that I kept at, mostly in the "bell-tone"
that soured. It was not my first piano and it has been about 15 years since
I tuned pianos for AFMM concerts. I enjoyed it as I do to tuning in general.
In the next weeks I will be tuning Joshua Pierce's piano to Werckmeister III
to try Bach on the modern piano. (And Werckmeister was specific that the
octaves MUST be just.) Some time after that, we will try Kirnberger's tunings for
Beethoven. But I am starting to think, as per Stuart Isacoff, that Beethoven
may have been one of the first ET composers.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#44007

> To Joseph, I am beginning to understand that there is a danger to
pitch accuracy in the transference from one pitch source to another.

***It was our "beloved" expensive Korg microtuner that we "share"
together (if we can find out where it currently is!). I tried to
tune the piano with it and found that my hearing made it seem as
though I were comparing "apples to oranges..." Better to do the
tuning the "old fashioned" way... at least compared to *that* device!

JP

In a message dated 6/1/03 9:34:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jpehrson@rcn.com
writes:

> ***It was our "beloved" expensive Korg microtuner that we "share"
> together (if we can find out where it currently is!). I tried to
> tune the piano with it and found that my hearing made it seem as
> though I were comparing "apples to oranges..." Better to do the
> tuning the "old fashioned" way... at least compared to *that* device!
>
> JP
>
>
>
>

Actually, I used a cheaper Korg tuner because it makes more sounds. I have
the expensive one here in the apartment. Sorry everybody. ;) Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>
> /tuning/topicId_43987.html#43987
>
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > with a guitar tuner
> >
> > (sounds ok)
>
> ***I tried to do that once, rather than the *conventional* way and
> failed miserably. Somehow I couldn't relate the piano timbre to
the
> timbre of the buzzing tuner... Maybe the *inharmonic* nature of
it?
> Dunno...
>
> Joseph

my guitar tuner doesn't buzz . . . but it chirps when you're "in
tune", which is nice.

the point of this was that there is no stretch applied, and even
though mine is an upright piano, the result actually sounds ok!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> I used
> a tuner to check that I was in the right vicinity, but used my ears
as the
> final arbiter.

> I tuned pure octaves, refusing to accept blindly that the stretched
octaves
> "improve" the sound.

if you used your ears as the final arbiter, how do you know you
didn't stretch the octaves? the minimum beating, of course, will
occur when the octaves are slightly stretched, due to the
inharmonicity of plucked or struck strings -- so if you used your ear
to ameliorate some of the beating on the octaves, you would have
likely ended up with stretching.

i just tuned my piano *without* consulting my ear, except for the
very extreme registers where the tuner ceased to work. i can
definitely hear that the 1200-cent octaves sound too narrow, but not
so narrow as to sound overtly "wrong" when actually playing music.

> (And Werckmeister was specific that the
> octaves MUST be just.)

was the difference between 2:1 octaves and minimum-beating octaves
known in werckmeister's time?

> Some time after that, we will try Kirnberger's tunings for
> Beethoven. But I am starting to think, as per Stuart Isacoff, that
Beethoven
> may have been one of the first ET composers.

well, he was certainly one of the first composers to make use of all
the modulational (not merely transpositional) possibilities that a
closed 12-tone system offers.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

> with a guitar tuner
>
> (sounds ok)

What did you tune it to? Some kind of meantone or just tuning?

* David Beardsley
* microtonal guitar
* http://biink.com/db

i'm ready to try the recent bob wendell natural well temperament
next. you know, the one where all the major triads have synchronized
beating. bob, are you still with us? can you present a plan for
executing this without fancy equipment (as you seemed to imply was
possible due to the beat synchronies)?

In a message dated 6/2/03 2:55:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> if you used your ears as the final arbiter, how do you know you
> didn't stretch the octaves?

You mean, how do you know? I know because I didn't listen to beats in the
process and I checked all the octaves throughout the instrument so that they
were the same.

the minimum beating, of course, will >
> occur when the octaves are slightly stretched, due to the
> inharmonicity of plucked or struck strings -- so if you used your ear
> to ameliorate some of the beating on the octaves, you would have
> likely ended up with stretching.

Paul, theory is just theory. You would have to be there. :)

> i just tuned my piano *without* consulting my ear, except for the
> very extreme registers where the tuner ceased to work. i can
> definitely hear that the 1200-cent octaves sound too narrow, but not
> so narrow as to sound overtly "wrong" when actually playing music.
>

Are you saying that tuning to a machine left you with flat octaves?

> > (And Werckmeister was specific that the
> > octaves MUST be just.)
>
> was the difference between 2:1 octaves and minimum-beating octaves
> known in werckmeister's time?
>

I wouldn't doubt that post-Mersenne musicians noticed the beats as
interference. What is specific is that Werckmeister did not want the octaves to be
tempered.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, David Beardsley <db@b...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> > with a guitar tuner
> >
> > (sounds ok)
>
> What did you tune it to? Some kind of meantone or just tuning?

the last time i tuned it it was to meantone (by ear), and the next
time it will be to a significantly unequal well-temperament (by ear),
but this weekend i had an emergency performance at my house to
prepare for, with no idea what key the music was going to be in, so i
buckled down with the guitar tuner and set an unstretched 12-evil.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/2/03 2:55:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > if you used your ears as the final arbiter, how do you know you
> > didn't stretch the octaves?
>
> You mean, how do you know? I know because I didn't listen to beats
in the
> process and I checked all the octaves throughout the instrument so
that they
> were the same.

the same what? same rate of beating? that wouldn't do it either.

> > i just tuned my piano *without* consulting my ear, except for the
> > very extreme registers where the tuner ceased to work. i can
> > definitely hear that the 1200-cent octaves sound too narrow, but
not
> > so narrow as to sound overtly "wrong" when actually playing music.
> >
>
> Are you saying that tuning to a machine left you with flat octaves?

the octaves *sounded* flat, because they were only 1200 cents. the
upright piano especially has stretched partials, which reinforces the
natural tendency in the absence of partials to hear widened octaves
as most "equivalent" in terms of pitch class or chroma.

> > > (And Werckmeister was specific that the
> > > octaves MUST be just.)
> >
> > was the difference between 2:1 octaves and minimum-beating
octaves
> > known in werckmeister's time?
> >
> I wouldn't doubt that post-Mersenne musicians noticed the beats as
> interference.

which beats in what instances? please explain. i'm suggesting that
maybe they tuned octaves to minimize beating and *assumed*,
incorrectly, that they were getting 2:1 octaves.

> What is specific is that Werckmeister did not want the octaves to
be
> tempered.

it's arguable whether 1200 cents would be considered tempered or not
when none of the audible harmonics are actually 1200 cents apart.

In a message dated 6/2/03 3:51:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

>
> the octaves *sounded* flat, because they were only 1200 cents. the
> upright piano especially has stretched partials, which reinforces the
> natural tendency in the absence of partials to hear widened octaves
> as most "equivalent" in terms of pitch class or chroma.
>

As a musican I hear perfect octaves, just as I would any exact microtone. I
listen to the fundamentals of the pitch, not to the partials, inharmonic or
otherwise. I am aware that tuners can stretch a full semitone or more from the
lowest pitch to the highest pitch. I did not want to do that. If I am tuning
a violin with a double bass I can want, and achieve, pure octave
relationships.

> > > > (And Werckmeister was specific that the
> > > > octaves MUST be just.)
> > >
> > > was the difference between 2:1 octaves and minimum-beating
> octaves
> > > known in werckmeister's time?
> > >
> > I wouldn't doubt that post-Mersenne musicians noticed the beats as
> > interference.
>
> which beats in what instances? please explain. i'm suggesting that
> maybe they tuned octaves to minimize beating and *assumed*,
> incorrectly, that they were getting 2:1 octaves.
>

Why? They were tuning organs and harpsichords. Why couldn't they get exact
2:1 relationships?

> > What is specific is that Werckmeister did not want the octaves to
> be
> > tempered.
>
> it's arguable whether 1200 cents would be considered tempered or not
> when none of the audible harmonics are actually 1200 cents apart.
>

Why must the harmonics hold sway over the fundamental? Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> > which beats in what instances? please explain. i'm suggesting
that
> > maybe they tuned octaves to minimize beating and *assumed*,
> > incorrectly, that they were getting 2:1 octaves.
> >
>
> Why? They were tuning organs and harpsichords. Why couldn't they
get exact
> 2:1 relationships?

on organs, yes. on harpsichords, no.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/%7Ejw/harmonics.html

> > > What is specific is that Werckmeister did not want the octaves
to
> > be
> > > tempered.
> >
> > it's arguable whether 1200 cents would be considered tempered or
not
> > when none of the audible harmonics are actually 1200 cents apart.
> >
>
> Why must the harmonics hold sway over the fundamental?

if you're tuning by eliminating beats, you need some harmonic of the
lower note to coincide with some harmonic of the higher note. it is
true that, harmonics aside, there is such a thing as second-order
beating, but this is swamped by the first-order beating that occurs
between nearly coinciding harmonics and was unknown until the advent
of electronically produced sine waves.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#44031

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_43987.html#43987
> >
> > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > with a guitar tuner
> > >
> > > (sounds ok)
> >
> > ***I tried to do that once, rather than the *conventional* way
and
> > failed miserably. Somehow I couldn't relate the piano timbre to
> the
> > timbre of the buzzing tuner... Maybe the *inharmonic* nature of
> it?
> > Dunno...
> >
> > Joseph
>
> my guitar tuner doesn't buzz . . . but it chirps when you're "in
> tune", which is nice.
>
> the point of this was that there is no stretch applied, and even
> though mine is an upright piano, the result actually sounds ok!

***I never learned "stretched octaves" when I learned piano tuning
way back in the 1970's... Presumably this is a newer practice by
tuners, I guess... ??

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***I never learned "stretched octaves" when I learned piano tuning
> way back in the 1970's... Presumably this is a newer practice by
> tuners, I guess... ??
>
> J. Pehrson

it's not that new. piano tuners are taught to tune octaves by
aligning certain pairs of partials, ranging from "2:1" in the high
register all the way to "10:5" or even "12:6" in the lowest register.
it's easy if you know which pitch to listen for beating partials at.

on 6/2/03 7:02 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>
> /tuning/topicId_43987.html#44031
>
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>>>
>>> /tuning/topicId_43987.html#43987
>>>
>>> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>>>> with a guitar tuner
>>>>
>>>> (sounds ok)
>>>
>>> ***I tried to do that once, rather than the *conventional* way
> and
>>> failed miserably. Somehow I couldn't relate the piano timbre to
>> the
>>> timbre of the buzzing tuner... Maybe the *inharmonic* nature of
>> it?
>>> Dunno...
>>>
>>> Joseph
>>
>> my guitar tuner doesn't buzz . . . but it chirps when you're "in
>> tune", which is nice.
>>
>> the point of this was that there is no stretch applied, and even
>> though mine is an upright piano, the result actually sounds ok!
>
>
> ***I never learned "stretched octaves" when I learned piano tuning
> way back in the 1970's... Presumably this is a newer practice by
> tuners, I guess... ??

I'm wondering whether the "explicit" understanding of stretching didn't
become more important with the advent of strobotuners and their more modern
equivalents, which presumably detect primarily the fundamental. If you are
tuning the fundamental you better know to apply stretch. On the other hand
if you are tuning what you hear, maybe you are hearing the harmonics that
are most important to the ear's sense of pitch. Maybe additional training
to explicitly recognize that always helps, but may not be essential for many
who already have a "good ear".

-Kurt Bigler

>
> J. 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@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#44091

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***I never learned "stretched octaves" when I learned piano
tuning
> > way back in the 1970's... Presumably this is a newer practice by
> > tuners, I guess... ??
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> it's not that new. piano tuners are taught to tune octaves by
> aligning certain pairs of partials, ranging from "2:1" in the high
> register all the way to "10:5" or even "12:6" in the lowest
register. it's easy if you know which pitch to listen for beating
partials at.

***Well, I was taught at that time by a reputable tuner and only told
to tune octaves *without beating.* So, in other words, there are
*other* things going on depending on the octave?? That was never
taught in that course at that time... How would one do that while
tuning the octave??

J. Pehrson

on 6/3/03 6:00 PM, Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
>
> /tuning/topicId_43987.html#44091
>
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
>>
>>> ***I never learned "stretched octaves" when I learned piano
> tuning
>>> way back in the 1970's... Presumably this is a newer practice by
>>> tuners, I guess... ??
>>>
>>> J. Pehrson
>>
>> it's not that new. piano tuners are taught to tune octaves by
>> aligning certain pairs of partials, ranging from "2:1" in the high
>> register all the way to "10:5" or even "12:6" in the lowest
> register. it's easy if you know which pitch to listen for beating
> partials at.
>
> ***Well, I was taught at that time by a reputable tuner and only told
> to tune octaves *without beating.* So, in other words, there are
> *other* things going on depending on the octave?? That was never
> taught in that course at that time... How would one do that while
> tuning the octave??

Tuning to zero-beat will always be a relative thing - never perfectly
achievable. The point is that the harmonics, particularly on heavier
(wound) strings are not "true" harmonics, i.e. not in exact ratios. The
problem gets worse on shorter pianos. So if you get zero beat on the 3rd
harmonic you won't get zero beat on the fundamental. I don't know the exact
details about what harmonics end up being important, but "the ear" (which
may be an individual thing, but fortunately follows some general patters for
most of us) will hear some harmonics more than others in the process of
determing apparent pitch of a set of "harmonics" that are not exactly
harmonic. If you are tuning by beat perhaps this will come naturally - the
ones you will tend to hear as you listen for zero-beat will be the ones you
need to hear because those are the ones everyone will tend to hear in
judging the pitch. I am just guessing here a little - I have never heard
anyone say it exactly this way, and I am not a piano tuner myself!
(Apologies if I am speaking too far out of my expertise.)

-Kurt Bigler

>
> J. 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@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#44108

>
> Tuning to zero-beat will always be a relative thing - never
perfectly achievable. The point is that the harmonics, particularly
on heavier(wound) strings are not "true" harmonics, i.e. not in exact
ratios.

***Thanks, Kurt! I believe this partially answers the question I
made to Ed Foote...

Thanks!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:

> ***Well, I was taught at that time by a reputable tuner and only
told
> to tune octaves *without beating.*

not possibly on a piano -- if one pair of partials doesn't beat,
another will. that's why you can only tune a piano octave to "2:1" or
"4:2" or "6:3", etc., but not all at once.

> So, in other words, there are
> *other* things going on depending on the octave?? That was never
> taught in that course at that time... How would one do that while
> tuning the octave??
>
> J. Pehrson

joseph, the jorgensen tuning book addresses this question in great
detail. pull it off your shelf!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"

/tuning/topicId_43987.html#44121

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
>
> > ***Well, I was taught at that time by a reputable tuner and only
> told
> > to tune octaves *without beating.*
>
> not possibly on a piano -- if one pair of partials doesn't beat,
> another will. that's why you can only tune a piano octave to "2:1"
or
> "4:2" or "6:3", etc., but not all at once.

***Got it

>
> > So, in other words, there are
> > *other* things going on depending on the octave?? That was never
> > taught in that course at that time... How would one do that
while
> > tuning the octave??
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> joseph, the jorgensen tuning book addresses this question in great
> detail. pull it off your shelf!

***Thanks, Paul. I'll "revisit" it...

JP