Hello again Solliday, I ask your forgiveness for my offensive statement about some of the greatest innovators in the field, in spite of their capacity to stifle innovation in the process. I was being sarcastic. I will repeat what may become a tautology, if I remain on the CaUT list. All these men, doctors or not, do not need my approval. The first thing you recognized, that I have a job that I need to get to, was perhaps the truest thing you observed. I have yet to unequivocally express my opinion on what I choose to call Visual Aids, or the idea of soundboard as amplifier; that will happen in the next few days. For now, off the subject, I will mention a few things about what you call ETD's, whether or not that will be all I say. I remember the first encounter I had with electronic tuning. I was in Aspen. At the time, I had a lot of repertoire in my hands. I was playing what I remember was a Boston in one of the halls, and the tuning sounded phenomenal. I asked who tuned it, and was informed it was so and so, who uses an electronic tuner. I regularly make this confession. Is it needless to add that 33% is stability, 33% is unisons, both neutral with regard to ETD vs. Aural? I have always appreciated the sound of electronic tuning. I am the proud owner of a Reyburn cyber-tuner. I have characterized it already as educational. As a result my aural tuning improved, but it by no means ceased; it just got better. Nevertheless, I am not entirely happy with the direction that orthodoxy in programming has taken, which I have intimated, and with the propensity for using Visual Aids around here, every time I get into a hall I have to break in regular users of the piano into the habit of hearing 8:4 octaves in the lower mid-range, even up to C4-C5, bread and butter of my aural tuning. Yeah, it bothers me that electronic tuning programmers are committed to something much narrower in the mid-range and upper treble. Sorry. It has left me unsure as to the capacity of the Visual Aids to hear all that needs to be heard in the process of tuning a piano. If you take Reyburn's classes, he tells you himself how many years he tuned aurally himself, and that the final judge is always the ear, not the eye. I also appreciate its transparency that establishes a platform for comparison, something that I have the impression that other Visual Aid programmers resent him for starting. I have had access to the Sanderson accu-tuner for some time, and it works well also. There is a stigma to using it I think is unwarranted when you use it. You need it. This is not necessarily the case. It raised the standard. It made period tuning much more accessible. Don't take it personally. - Ben From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris Solliday Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 9:54 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics Mr. Sloane, I think "perhaps" maybe an understatment, but I appreciate your flexibility if not your regret. Chris Solliday ----- Original Message ----- From: Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)<mailto:sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> To: 'caut at ptg.org'<mailto:'caut at ptg.org'> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 11:06 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics Good one Solliday. Maybe I should have described what I was saying this way. If the relationship between bridge termination, soundboard, and the string is all about vibration, and has nothing to do with sound, then assuming I use the same types of octaves throughout in tuning two pianos, tuned at the same pitch, of the same make and model, scaled precisely the same, these should sound exactly the same, should they not? Perhaps that is a more tactful way of saying what I said. From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Chris Solliday Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:57 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics Ben Sloane, That's Dr. Sanderson and Verituner. What's the point of being such a little snot on this list? Don't you have some work to do? Chris Solliday rpt ----- Original Message ----- From: Sloane, Benjamin (sloaneba)<mailto:sloaneba at ucmail.uc.edu> To: 'caut at ptg.org'<mailto:'caut at ptg.org'> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics "This is not amplified sound; there was no original sound to be amplified, only the mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string." What I don't understand about this excerpt is this. If what I do has nothing to do with sound, and everything to do with a vibrating string, then why are so many piano technicians deciding they need to consolidate all their energies to modifying sound, and leaving modifying string tension for correct string vibration to some guys named Sanderson, Reyburn, Dr. Verituner, Sir Tunelab, and their apologist, Baldassin? Furthermore, how do we consider those who leave modifying string vibrations to others, assuming this is all about string vibration, and not sound, good piano technicians at all in light of this conviction? From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Delwin D Fandrich Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:10 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Semantics | To me, the transducer argument *de-couples* the strings and | the soundboard--(by doing this "transducing," taking one | thing and making it another). That goes against everything | I've read about piano acoustics. This would rather depend on what you are reading. To be sure, Wm Braid White wrote eloquently, if some what confusingly, about the power of resonance, that mysterious property he found in certain materials-namely spruce-to amplify the sonorous quality of the strings. Thus he was able to state that "more resonating power is required for the relatively weaker treble strings than for the relatively stronger bass strings." In this way he was able to explain why piano builders had found it necessary to make their soundboard panels thicker in the treble area and thinner in the bass area. In 1909 White did not yet have to contend with the so-called "Diaphragmatic" soundboard. But that was then and this is now. So far as I know there is no modern writer who speaks of the piano soundboard system as an amplifier. In the Five Lectures series, Klaus Wogram writes, "The soundboard transforms the mechanical vibrations into radiated sound." Benade (Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics) discusses the soundboard as a "two-dimensional driven plate." This plate, by means of forced vibration (the stored mechanical energy of the strings) creates sound (acoustical energy) by means of the resulting physical motion. For Fletcher & Rossing (The Physics of Musical Instruments) it is described thus: "Acoustically, the soundboard is the main radiating member in the instrument, transforming some of the mechanical energy of the strings and bridges into acoustical energy." It might be helpful to try a little experiment. Locate a thin piece of wood several inches wide and a few inches long. Now locate a small hammer. With the thin-and so far silent-wood panel in one hand tap its surface with the hammer. Sound (acoustical energy) is created when the hammer strikes (mechanical energy) the wood panel. It is an impulse sound, of course, and it dies out very quickly but if you could make your hammer strikes fast enough (vibrating mechanical energy) the resulting sound would become a tone (continuous acoustical energy). By striking the piece of wood with the hammer you created sound, or acoustical energy. It wasn't free-you had to invest mechanical energy to get it-but that acoustical energy was not amplified from anything. It was created. Now picture the soundboard bridge being struck repeatedly and rapidly by a series of tiny hammer blows (the vibrating string) and picture the soundboard responding to those blows by slight movements. Because of its large size the soundboard will create sound-acoustical energy. This is not amplified sound; there was no original sound to be amplified, only the mechanical energy stored in the vibrating string. (And let's not quibble over the minute amount of sound created by the vibrating string(s). This is completely overwhelmed by the wash of acoustical energy coming from the soundboard.) Semantically we could, I suppose, quibble over whether the piano soundboard system should be called a transformer-"...a thing which transforms something"-or a transducer-"a device for converting variations in one physical quantity, as pressure, brightness, etc., quantitatively into variations in another, as voltage, position, etc." (Both from the OED) What we cannot do, at least not if we want our language to meet even minimal standards of technical accuracy, is call the piano soundboard system an amplifier. Over the past century our understanding of how the piano works has evolved considerably as has the language used to describe and discuss it. Words and their meanings in a technical community-and both CAUT and PianoTech are technical communities-are important. They convey certain defined technical meanings to the participants. These are not casual discussions over the Sunday barbecue with Aunt Matilda. To misuse technical words or to apply one's own meanings to them-even if that usage was in vogue a hundred years ago-can only mislead and confuse the reader or participant. ddf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090515/68676bf0/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC