Tuning Testing Standards

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

HI Michael:

I will intersperse my comments below.

On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Michael Jorgensen wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>      Your experiment has much bearing on the merits/demerits of HT.  If
> piano tuners who ought to be most aware of beat speeds do not hear or
> notice something funny in the tuning then there must be something else
> at play here.  My hypothesis is that tuners use so much stretch that
> fast 10ths, 17ths, have become accepted as normal and consequently not
> noticed as errors.  Better sounds from other thirds are not noticed
> because humans only zero in on errors not natural sounding
> improvements.  
>     What stretch level was used for the ET?  Was it the same for the WT
> piano?  Were both tuned with an ETD by the same tuner?  In aural terms,
> how fast were the relative speeds of the 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths?  How
> does this compare with what the Steinway tuners do?  If OTS 4 on the RCT
> is typical of most tuners, doesn't that make some 17ths equal to some of
> the faster well tempered thirds?

This was a Coleman vs Coleman Tuneoff. I used the same stretch pattern
in both tunings which were done using the SAT III with the added .3 beats
to the double octave. This is perhaps equivalent to an RCT OTS of 7. The
10th beat faster than the 3rds, the 17ths beat faster than the 10ths. If
a 17th equals a 10th, this proves a simple 2:1 type octave. I suspect this
is not too different from Steinway tuners.

> The reasons I have heard for high stretch are;
> 1. To make the piano more brilliant
>        (If this is true, it is sad to ruin the tuning in a feeble 
>       attempt to overcome a weak dull treble by creating beats) 
> 2. The pianists like it that way;
>       (If this is true, it is a point for HT because it says that
>       pianists miss the high tension sounds of fast 3rds, 10ths, and 
>      17ths which means they should be using HTs inorder to gain these
>      without much stretch i.e with clear octaves and gaining  smooth 
>      3rds where the composers intended.)
> 3. The concert tuners are all deaf;
>      (I hope this isn't true, but Yat Lam once told me that as hearing 
>     loss developes with age so does the tendency to tune sharper.  The 
>      ear grows less sensitive over minor clarity problems.  Most concert
>     tuners are old by the time they acheive that status and the pianists
>      are conditioned to that sound.  In my 20s I know I always had a 
>      tendency to tune flat, i.e. had to work to get the 10ths and 17ths
>      up to equal speed with the thirds.)
> 4.  To make cleaner 12ths and 19ths.  This is a plus for higher stretch.
>   
Item number 4 above is my main reason for using this stretch. It also
provides for better sounding triple octaves. In this same class I 
demonstrated the difference between melodic pitch concepts and harmonic
pitch concepts. If you have ever been in one of my classes, you know that
this is quite persuasive. You can do the test yourself. Play middle C, 
listen to it carefully, let the sound stop, then tune C7 to where you think
it sounds in tune with what you remember about C4. Listen to each separately
again and make any adjustments you think are required. Be sure that you do
not play one note while the other is still sounding (because this would be
harmonic comparison). Melodic means one note following another. Harmonic
means two or more notes sounding together. After you are satisfied that the
two notes sound properly related melodically, play the C6-C7 octave. It will
be so wild that you could never tolerate it. I have done this test before
many audiences over the last several years and invariably the note C7 ends
up anywhere from 25 cents sharp to 44 cents sharp based upon the majority
judgment of the audience. The point to all this is that the harmonic 
relationship of C4 to C7 is always from 14 to 17 cents as being what the
8th partial of C4 would require. Although by careful stretch of the in
between octaves (C5 & C6) we can achieve a C7 which would satisfy the
requirements of the 8th partial of C4, there is NO WAY that we could ever
satisfy the melodic hearing requirements of C4 to C7 without terrible
distortion of the intervening octaves. This demonstration proves that
as musicians, we listen melodically as well as harmonically. As piano
tuners, we must listen harmonically to do our job. Otherwise everything
is purely subjective.


> Once in a while I run into a musician who objects to stretch beyond
> equal 3rds, 10ths and 17ths.  I too question the musical merits of all
> that stretch.
> 
> What is the real reason for all this stretch as you see it?
> 
See my paragraph above           Jim Coleman, Sr.

> -Mike Jorgensen RPT
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote:
> > 
> > I thought there may be some who would be interested in the latest Tuneoff.
> > 
>  I presented two identical pianos
> > which had just been tuned in different temperaments. One was just a standard
> > SAT FAC tuning which incidentally is a very good tuning on a Yamaha C3. The
> > other tuning was the Moore 18th Century Well Temperament which had some
> > notes tuned 2.5 and 3.0 cents off from equal temperament.
> > 
> > After playing identical selections on the two pianos, I asked the class
> > which piano they thought was the one with the "funny" tuning (actually, I
> > used the words Moore Well tempered tuning). In the Friday class, the voting
> > was fairly even. 54% thought the FAC tuning was the Well Tempered Tuning and
> > only 46% guessed correctly. In the Sunday afternoon class, 80% thought that
> > the FAC Tuning was the Well Tempered Tuning. I next asked which piano they
> > liked best as far as tuning was concerned. It was almost unanimously decided
> > in favor of the Well Tempered Tuning.
> >
>