standards

[Richard E. West]

 Richard, Fred, and All,

See comments to your emails below.  But before that I have questions:

Can you describe the difference in beat speeds between the 3rd's, 10ths,
and 17ths?  For example can you compare the G3-B4 10th to a 3rd that is
in the temperament?  Is that 10th the same speed as the Aflat3-C4 3rd?
Or is it faster?  A3-C#4 third?  B3-D#4 third?

What about the 17th?  Is there a third in the temperament that
corresponds to the beat speed of the 17th?  What I'm looking for is a
test that is similar to the inside/outside test of the temperament
(M6th/M3rd test) but usable for octaves and double octaves.

Another question:

Do you ever tune 5ths wide in octaves 2, 3, 4, 5?

Thanks for all the comments.  This is an interested thread for me.  I
presume you'll tell me if you think this whole idea is totally off
base.  Some have said as much already, but I have a good flame suit so
I'm not giving up yet.

Richard West



Richard Moody wrote:

> Greetings Richard West,
>      I have a feeling half of you questions can't be answered
> unless we are standing beside the particular concert grand, and
> listening to it in the hall not only during tuning but also
> performance.

This is a point that is often raised that I question.  With all the
articles that have been written, there still isn't a good real world
description of a good tuning on a good piano.  Fool that I am, I think
that description is possible.

I had two reasons for starting this thread:  1)  The PTG exam is based
on clean 2:1 octaves, which is fine, but I don't like the results, and I
don't tune that way.  I'm wondering if others agree or not, 2)  Thinking
long term, if CAUT is thinking of creating some sort of "certification"
for institutional techs, wouldn't it be nice if a real world standard of
concert tuning existed out there. What we all do with the myriad
spinets, consoles, and small grands may vary, but it seems to me the
variance is less with concert grands. If we all agree to disagree,
that's fine, but it doesn't seem like we've ever had a real descriptive
basis for comparison.  We end up saying things like, "I really stretch
my octaves," or "I like smoother octaves."  Can't we do better than
that?

>
>      You ask about the 4 :2 ratio "or wider".  This is only a
> concern with machines.   Because of the myriad of aural tests, the
> 4:2 or the 6:3 or the 2:1 are all considered when doing an aural
> tuning.

I agree, but I think there are also some underlying principles that we
have decided on and those are what I'm trying to get at.

>
>     So I am wondering if you are doubting your training, your
> experience, or are trying to decide to spend up to $2,000 on the
> ultimate tuning machine.

There may be some of what you say in what I'm exploring, but I would
like to know if there's a way of coming to consensus on how to tune a
concert grand.  At the risk of being repetitive, I still suspect that
there's a standard, but that we too often give up on finding a way to
describe that standard.

I have both a CyberTuner and an Accutuner, so I already use machines,
but I find that neither is capable of delivering the "perfect" tuning
for any particular piano  without considerable measuring, fussing, and
time. Tuning aurally doesn't guarantee the "perfect" tuning either, but
I'm holding to the opinion that there is a usable, verifiable, real
world standard.

Fred Sturm wrote:

Amen to that! Top priorities are
1) Stability
2) Unisons
3) Stability
4) Unisons
        Everything else comes after that. And I think maybe the next on
the list
would be "overall stretch" in terms of effect on overall sound - which
really means how well the whole web is woven, with consistent
coincidence
of partials throughout.

I agree completely!  In fact I tune unisons as I go because years ago I
found that I could  spend a lot of time working on a good temperment
using a temperament strip and end up in a completely different place by
the time the strip is pulled and the unisons are finished.  One culprit
is the pitch drop that Virgil Smith has described, i.e., the slight
difference in pitch between one string and three strings.  The other
culprit is good stable tuning technique.  That's a big one.

My hoped for standard would start with a temperament fully tuned,
unisons and intervals, before moving outside the temperament area.  This
not only starts from a stable base, but provides the opportunity to
constantly reexamine that base to insure that ears (or etd microphones)
didn't deceive, or miss something..


>
>
> ---rm
>
> > --On Monday, May 5, 2003 8:42 AM -0500 Richard West
> <rwest1@unl.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello, All,
> > >
> > > I'm curious about what the "standard" for concert tuning might
> be.  How
> > > do you tune a concert grand in equal temperament (9' Steinway,
> for
> > > example)?  What are your standards?  I know pianos vary, but
> what are you
> > > personally trying to achieve when you tune concert grands?
> I'm trying to
> > > get a handle on what's really being done out there in the real
> world,
> > > apart from PTG's tuning exam.
> > >
> > > Questions:
> > >
> > > 1.  When you set the temperament, how wide is your temperament
> octave,
> > > 4:2, or wider?  If you choose wider, are you comfortable with
> the
> > > compromised (i.e. faster beating) 4ths, even if you get nicer,
> cleaner
> > > fifths?   2.  How wide are your midrange octaves?  4:2 or
> wider?
> > > 3.  When checking octaves and double octaves, do you strive
> for equal
> > > beating 3rds, 10ths, 17ths, or do the 10ths beat faster than
> the 3rds,
> > > and the 17ths faster still?
> > >
> > > 4.  In the top octave do you tune clean 2:1 octaves, clean 4:1
> double
> > > octaves, or do you stretch more than clean double octaves?  If
> you
> > > stretch more than clean double octaves, how do you know how
> much more
> > > stretch you're introducing? Are you comfortable with the fast
> beating
> > > single octaves?  What test(s) do you use when stretching
> beyond the clean
> > > double octave, especially in the last 1/2 of the top octave?
> > >
> > > 5.  In the octave between C1 and C2, what should the beat
> rates for 17ths
> > > be?
> > >
> > > Thanks for your input on this.
> > >
> > > Richard West, University of Nebraska
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives