[CAUT] Sacrifice (was tuners- technology)

[Fred Sturm]

On 2/28/05 4:43 PM, "A440A@aol.com" <A440A@aol.com> wrote:

> On smaller pianos, I often need to let the thirds lose that perfect
> progression of decreasing beat rate speeds in order to maintain the same
> sound to my octaves as they pass over the bass break.

    Yep, no question this is the case. By virtue of using the 4th partial to
tune, and having those numbers progress evenly, the mathematics behind the
various ETD's give what I consider to be a too even progression of M3's on
pianos with large jumps in inharmonicity. After all, we are imposing an
illusion of ET, not tuning ET (ie, defined as splitting the octave evenly,
setting fundamental pitches in a 12th root of 2 progression). I think those
pianos with large breaks sound better if they have, shall we say, more
attention paid to 4ths and 5ths, which will mean that, yes, there will be a
bump or two in beat rates of descending M3's.
    Maybe ten years ago I did a whole lot of fussing with tunings for
Hamiltons (since I have 30 or so in the inventory), trying to come up with a
"perfect" tuning. Definitely got to the point of diminishing returns fast. I
could make all the M3's progress perfectly, but that caused too many other
problems, and they were more obvious to the ear. And, frankly, playing
various pianos using various tunings, I couldn't really tell the difference.
Or, if I could tell a difference, I couldn't say I preferred one over the
other to any significant degree. I finally learned my lesson, quit fussing,
and just tuned, focusing mostly on the octaves.
    In fact, I found, maybe 15 years ago when I was more ambitious about
investigating such minutia, that the Steinway D wants to have jumps in M3,
M10 and M17 beat rates at all three breaks - plain to wrapped trichords,
wrapped trichords to bichords, bichords to singles - on the assumption one
wants octaves to be of consistent width. Small jumps, but definitely there.
To be specific, descending, when you cross a break the beat rate is slightly
faster than the previous one.
    But does this really matter? Not to me, at least any more. Or perhaps I
should say that I have decided that smooth octaves (single, double and
triple, 12ths, and 19ths are more important. Whatever the machine decides to
do with the thirds works fine for me <g>. Unless I'm doing a stealth
"Representative Victorian Moore," although I guess I'm perfectly happy with
where the machine puts those as well. Unisons and octaves are where we earn
our money.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico