[CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

Fred:

I agree, but can you characterize/describe how the individual octaves  
turn out when you choose to emphasize the wider intervals?  How do  
the 2:1 octaves beat in the tenor and upper midrange in order for you  
to get the expansion you want in the higher octaves?  Are your fifths  
in the midrange pure?  Wider than pure?  How much faster are the  
tenths when compared with the thirds?

I guess I'm saying that you can't have it both ways, and I'm  
interested in how you would describe what your compromises and tuning  
choices do to the octaves in the middle of the piano.  For example,  
let's take the B4.  I assume that you like to hear the G3-B4 tenth  
beating faster than the G3-B3 third.  How much faster, one beat, two,  
more?  Would the G3-B4 tenth beat at the same speed as the A3-C#4  
third?  How fast will you allow fourths to beat just above the  
temperament?

For arguments sake let's assume this is a concert grand.  I think  
we'd agree that compromises would be different in an upright or small  
grand.  Since concert grands are the instruments that provide the  
best opportunity to match our theoretical ideas with a real world  
instrument, I'd like to get your practical description for concert  
grand octaves.

The reason this topic has been of interest to me for years is this:   
We technicians claim that the "artistry" of tuning is a matter of  
personal choice.  Some people choose wider octaves than others.  On  
some level I agree.  But I also believe that the degree of choice is  
a lot narrower than has been described to me over the years.  In  
other words a good concert tuning doesn't have as much lattitude for  
choosing as we've come to believe.  Continuing to promote this long  
held belief creates confusion, IMHO.  After all, there are certain  
laws of physics at work here.  We wouldn't want to violate the laws  
of physics.


Richard West




On Jan 23, 2007, at 8:48 AM, Fred Sturm wrote:

> On Jan 22, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Porritt, David wrote:
>
>> Fred:
>>
>>
>>
>> I no longer have an SAT.  I’ve found TuneLab to be easier to  
>> measure as it’s semi-automatic.  It needs 4 notes I use 6.  It  
>> does a good job.  Still, I tune from F3 – C8 checking things along  
>> the way.  When I tune from E3 – A0 I turn off TuneLab when I get  
>> to the wrapped strings.  I’m much more interested in smooth  
>> octaves than compliance to a particular octave size (6:3, 8:4  
>> whatever) or smooth progression of beat rates.  It also helps  
>> battery life!
>>
>>
>>
>> dave
>>
>>
>>
>> David M. Porritt
>>
>> dporritt at smu.edu
> Hi Dave,
> 	I still have my SAT as backup, but use RCT. It fits my personality  
> better <g>.
> 	As to octaves, I think we tend to give too much emphasis to the  
> sound of the individual octave, rather than focusing on the sound  
> of the whole piano. I find that emphasizing wider intervals, like  
> 12ths, 19ths, and double/triple octaves, gives an overall sound I  
> prefer. The individual octaves are sized to fit within the larger  
> intervals.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070123/84ed316e/attachment-0001.html