piano tuning

Leen writes:
<< Piano's are supposed to be tuned in equal temperament.

Umm, not all suppose that. The vast majority of them are tuned that way
today, but there is a growing move back towards the tunings that the piano
evolved with, (known today as "well-temperaments")

>>However... some tuners make the higher octaves a little too wide. They say
this adds to the "brilliance"of the sound.I also know of a tuner who makes
the lower octaves a little too wide, he says this makes cords sound better. Are
great pianists known to have an opinion on this topic, and if they have, is
there concensus ?<<

Rarely. The great pianists usually are more concerned with unison clarity
first, then possibly the octaves. A highly stretched piano is less noticeable
than one that isn't stretched enough, though.

>>A tuner has to memorize the beats of the fifths, but without instrumental
help small errors are unavoidable.

Most aural tuning is done by comparing the speed of minor thirds with major
thirds, usually in the 7-10 beat per second range, ( a pure fifth will have
a lower m3 beating near the same as the upper M3, ie, when C-G is pure, the
C-Eb beats at the same speed as the Eb-G, if you want an ET fifth, the M3 is
slower). This is far more accurate than comparing the speed of the fifths
which in the middle of the piano beat less than once per second. There are also
valuable checks of comparing thirds to sixths.

>>Could it be that tuners have favorite keys that sound better than others ?
<<

Could be, but if they are intending ET, they can't afford to have
favorites.

>>To what precision can a piano be tuned? I think the slip-stick effect will
limit the smallest increment to which a string can be tuned .<<

Broadcast quality tunings are usually within .2 cents of ideal. On the
unisons, sometimes closer.

>>And a last observation : I read many years ago in The Scientific American
that the three strings tuned to the same note are a coupled vibration system
which can be made sound longer if slightly mistuned. I can hardly believe it.

This is the 'Weinreich" effect. The slight mistunings are required to
achieve consistant unisons from note to note. It is due more to the phase
effects than anything else. Rust and other considerations may play a part, but the
same procedure for clear unisons holds true for brand new strings, also. Look
on the web for http://www.speech.kth.se/music/5_lectures/

Paul writes, inre stretching the octaves:

>> it also helps the octaves beat less. it's impossible to tune beatless

octaves on a piano, because of the inharmonicity, but stretching the

octaves can lower most of the audible beating rates. <<

True, octaves will be beating at one or more of their coincident
partials, but if one is consistant, the impression can be made of clean octaves.
However, there is a cost. The farther octaves are stretched, the faster the
thirds contained within them will be. This can contribute to the sense of
"brilliance" in ET.

>>typically, the

octaves are tuned by matching the second partial of the lower note to

the fundamental of the higher note in the upper register

(shorthand "1:2"); as one moves to lower and lower registers, one

uses higher and higher partials, moving through "2:4" to "3:6"

to "4:8" to "5:10" or even "6:12" in the extreme low register.<<

Octaves are often tuned as 2:1 octaves in the middle, but as you go up the
scale, that size octave will start to sound flat. We are often tuning 3:6
octaves by the sixth octave going up. Stretching the bass out will help the piano
sound fuller,(by allowing the low end beating,which is very slow, in order to
more closely align the high partials of the bass with the fundamentals of the
middle section). The decision is made by what the scaling of the piano
is,(the length and diameter of the strings) and the intonational tastes of the
listener.

Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
<A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

> Umm, not all suppose that. The vast majority of them are tuned that way
> today, but there is a growing move back towards the tunings that the piano
> evolved with, (known today as "well-temperaments")

If you believe J. Cree Fischer's tuning book from the turn of the 20th century, some
tuners were still putting pianos in meantone temperaments at that time (favoring the
more common keys).

>
>> Octaves are often tuned as 2:1 octaves in the middle, but as you go up the
> scale, that size octave will start to sound flat. We are often tuning 3:6
> octaves by the sixth octave going up. Stretching the bass out will help the piano
> sound fuller,(by allowing the low end beating,which is very slow, in order to
> more closely align the high partials of the bass with the fundamentals of the
> middle section). The decision is made by what the scaling of the piano
> is,(the length and diameter of the strings) and the intonational tastes of the
> listener.

I had my piano tuned with no stretch for a while and it sounded fine-- part of me
almost prefers the acoustical 'correctness' vs. the auditory 'correctness'. -Justin

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...> wrote:

> I had my piano tuned with no stretch for a while and it sounded
>fine-- part of me
> almost prefers the acoustical 'correctness' vs. the
>auditory 'correctness'. -Justin

if i understand what you mean by these terms (and i may not), stretch
tuning is in fact founded more on acoustical correctness than on
auditory correctness. to the extent that tuning systems derive from
the spectra of the timbres they are meant for (and bill sethares's
book and music show that it's to quite an extent indeed), a stretched-
octave tuning is exactly what you'd expect on a piano (especially an
upright), since the partials, and all the octaves they form, are
stretched in the piano timbre. the "auditory correctness", i presume,
refers to the phenomenon that sine waves must be separated by a
little more than 1200 cents in order to sound like the same pitch
class (try it!) -- this phenomenon is not as strong as "acoustical
correctness" which, when there are prominent shrunk or stretched
octaves within the spectra, will least correspondingly shrunk or
stretched perceived equivalence intervals.

anyhow, the ear is surprisingly malleable, and it's remarkable what
it can be led to 'accept' or 'prefer' with the proper conditioning.
for example, microtonal music!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> anyhow, the ear is surprisingly malleable, and it's remarkable what
> it can be led to 'accept' or 'prefer' with the proper conditioning.
> for example, microtonal music!

For a better example, 12tet!!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > anyhow, the ear is surprisingly malleable, and it's remarkable
what
> > it can be led to 'accept' or 'prefer' with the proper
conditioning.
> > for example, microtonal music!
>
> For a better example, 12tet!!

yes, the degree to which either can sound "right" or "wrong"
depending on what one has been listening to for the last few weeks is
pretty stunning . . . though one never quite loses the ability to
identify, and appreciate, "justness" once one has heard it.

Hello Justin!

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:59:03 -0000
> From: "Justin Weaver" <improvist@usa.net>
> Subject: Re: piano tuning
>
> > Umm, not all suppose that. The vast majority of them are tuned that way
> > today, but there is a growing move back towards the tunings that the piano
> > evolved with, (known today as "well-temperaments")
>
> If you believe J. Cree Fischer's tuning book from the turn of the 20th century, some
> tuners were still putting pianos in meantone temperaments at that time (favoring the
> more common keys).

This is quite interesting. Have not heard of this book. Do you know where he was located as he might have been
submerged in a particular community?

>
> I had my piano tuned with no stretch for a while and it sounded fine-- part of me
> almost prefers the acoustical 'correctness' vs. the auditory 'correctness'. -Justin

This has been my response, But i can't say i have tried stretching the octaves either.

Hope to get another piano someday. In Japan they made a very small 3 octave piano which sounds rediculous but tw
ocould carry it and i had one for a while and loved the availability of having a piano sound at shows however
limited. Keep your eyes open@!
Right now i am out of room for instruments, I already gave up a dining room table to fit them all in. i have a bed,
couch and our instruments, we do have books and records and CDs, no TV except the computer

>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46879.html#46905

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...>
wrote:
>
> > I had my piano tuned with no stretch for a while and it sounded
> >fine-- part of me
> > almost prefers the acoustical 'correctness' vs. the
> >auditory 'correctness'. -Justin
>
> if i understand what you mean by these terms (and i may not),
stretch
> tuning is in fact founded more on acoustical correctness than on
> auditory correctness. to the extent that tuning systems derive from
> the spectra of the timbres they are meant for (and bill sethares's
> book and music show that it's to quite an extent indeed), a
stretched-
> octave tuning is exactly what you'd expect on a piano (especially
an
> upright), since the partials, and all the octaves they form, are
> stretched in the piano timbre. the "auditory correctness", i
presume,
> refers to the phenomenon that sine waves must be separated by a
> little more than 1200 cents in order to sound like the same pitch
> class (try it!) -- this phenomenon is not as strong as "acoustical
> correctness" which, when there are prominent shrunk or stretched
> octaves within the spectra, will least correspondingly shrunk or
> stretched perceived equivalence intervals.
>
> anyhow, the ear is surprisingly malleable, and it's remarkable what
> it can be led to 'accept' or 'prefer' with the proper conditioning.
> for example, microtonal music!

***Well, *my* understanding, from following the discussion on this
list is that the ear "thinks" that everything is "in tune" when the
octaves are stretched... (If the ear really "thinks"... :)

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_46879.html#46907

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
> > anyhow, the ear is surprisingly malleable, and it's remarkable
what
> > it can be led to 'accept' or 'prefer' with the proper
conditioning.
> > for example, microtonal music!
>
> For a better example, 12tet!!

***Hah. Good call, Jon...

JP

hi kraig,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

> Hello Justin!
>
> tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Message: 11
> > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 15:59:03 -0000
> > From: "Justin Weaver" <improvist@u...>
> > Subject: Re: piano tuning
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > If you believe J. Cree Fischer's tuning book from the
> > turn of the 20th century, some tuners were still putting
> > pianos in meantone temperaments at that time (favoring
> > the more common keys).
>
> This is quite interesting. Have not heard of this book.
> Do you know where he was located as he might have been
> submerged in a particular community?

Dave Hill has mentioned this book here in the past ... in fact,
Dave's quote of a Fischer statement about Woolhouse is what
got me going on my webpage about Woolhouse.

Fischer's book, _Piano Tuning: A Simple and Accurate Method
for Amateurs_, was published by Theodore Presser in Philadelphia
in 1907.

luckily, i managed to find a copy at a San Diego Library
book sale a couple of years ago.

-monz