On Fri, 21 Jul 1995 00:51:24 -0600 (MDT), davander@aol.com wrote: >> A professional tuner told me, that it took him seven years to >master it. > >That sounds about right! I have been studying piano tuning for about five >years (only the last two or three years seriously) and I still count myself >as a student. Interesting, I found much the same sort of thing. I kept asking myself the following question. "When is a piano really in tune"? I think the answer comes to you, when you become at home with equal temperament. > >>He does no longer use strictly equal tuning. > (stuff deleted) >> He would not reveal the exact working of his system to me >because, he >says, I am still too dumb to follow his explanations. > >I use equal temperament because that is all that I have studied to this >point. I have heard that equal temperament is one of the hardest tuning >systems to learn. There are quite a few different systems to use, and it >seems like many tuners use different systems and yet arrive at the desired >result, which is a well tuned piano. Mastering setting the pitch precisely >at A-440 and getting all of the unisons tuned pure and getting the piano to >have a stable tuning are prerequisites to learning some of the more esoteric >elements of piano tuning. I guess I went through a phase, when I thought I was God's gift to tuning. Perhaps, some 8 years after having gone through training. I applied for a job with Bill Kreis over here, and he said, "Ok, tune this for me, please." I went through it, check it out, and asked him for his opinion. He said, "Ok, do you really want me to check it out?" I answered in the affirmative and he proceeded to bang the stuffing out of the piano. Loud chords, great arpegeos, and strident playing that made the walls ring. Well, wasn't the walls that were ringing, but failing unisons. I probably never forgot that lesson. I knew what constituted a fine tuned instrument, but, the next question, what constituted one that stayed in tune? > >> Have you ever listened to a real pure Cmaj chord? Switch back >>then to "equal" temperament and notice the dissonances. I can only >>confirm, that it sounds like vinegar. This is the material, which >>pours out of all the radios and TVs all over the world, because >>all the misguided and miseducated musicians lost the ability to >>notice the mistuning of their instruments. Ever check out an electronic piano? Ever look critically at the temperaments? Do so some time, and be surprised at what you will see. > >I have never had the opportunity to hear a piano tuned in anything other than >equal temperament so I wouldn't know. I am sure that there is a difference >that would completely change the tone and "color" of music played on these >pianos. I personally _Love_ to listen to the different chords and intervals >on a piano I have just tuned. I think that it is very inspiring musically to >sit at a piano that has just been tuned in equal temperament. I may be >misguided and miseducated, but that is all that I know so far. To me, equal >temperament sounds wonderful. Yes, an illustration is some of the music to come out of the 30s and 40s. Back even further, ever hear a Nathan 6 note steam locomotive whistle? The reason they sounded so good was the fact that they were properly tuned and in equal temperament. > >I do think that most people couldn't tell the difference between equal >temperament and any of the "historical" tunings, just because they don't know >what to listen for. Also, most people (in my experience) don't really notice >when their piano is out of tune. They only have it tuned because they think >they should, not because they notice the >tuning is out. People that can't even tell when their piano is out of tune >certainly wouldn't even know what tuning system was used. As long as the >unisons and octaves sound good, they are happy. Yes, I think that's safe to say. When I started tuning, one wag told me, "Don't bother with setting the temperament, will save you lots of time, and they won't notice the difference." I dare say. I'd chop a half-hour off of my tuning, that being the case. But, I couldn't live with the result. (stuff deleted) > >>The beauty of equal temperament tuning is that while intervals >sound >equally bad, they also sound equally good. >> Everything is a trade off, or as they say you don't get something for >>nothing. The historical tunings have a very definite >>place when used in the right context and application. However, >while I use >these temperaments for historical concerts, I'm not quite >ready to give up >on equal temperament as a failed experiment. I think for better or worse, we are stuck with it. It's the core, and fabric of our music. To reject it, because it's there makes no sense. Actually, the equal temprament is a fascinating development. Once you get into it, and see how it all relates, the fascination becomes even greater. > >I am sure that in some circumstances historical temperaments would work very >well and serve their purpose. But for most home tunings, equal temperament >would probably be the best choice to use. I have tried some other solutions, but haven't felt comfortable with them. > >______________________________ >Helmut Wabnig wrote again: > >>A Big Question: >> In the U.S. it is common practice to start tuning at C. > >I would have to agree with several others who have written that in the U.S. >it is more common to tune starting at A4 (also known as A-49). European >practices may be to start tuning at C. > >>Now, tuning along the way to the first A, how do I make sure that >>the A is exactly 440.000000 Hertz, the reference tone? > >If you are tuning A4 only to the A-440 Hz tuning fork, it will be hard to get >the note set precisely where it should be. However, If you use a reference >note such as F2 (which is a Major 17th below A4), it is much easier to >compare the pitch of the tuning fork and the pitch of A4 to make sure that it >is set properly. For more detailed information on this read the PACE Tuning >Lesson #6 on Setting Pitch, written by Michael Travis, which is in the >February 1994 issue of the JOURNAL. > >> But how do I tune my tuning fork? > >Again, let me refer you to an article in the JOURNAL. Jim Ellis wrote a fine >article about tuning forks in the May 1995 issue of the JOURNAL, on pages >30-37. Endnote 5 on page 37 outlines what Mr. Ellis did to tune an A-440 >Steel Bar. The process for tuning a tuning fork would be similar. I never had access to the above sited article, I can speak to my own experience of tuning the fork, though when I took the tuning exam in the '80s. I was told "Make sure your fork is correct." Ok, what did I know. I knew that the time station WWV at some point during the hour broadcast a440 tone. I had to hand a melodica, which was also useable. I thought, "if I could establish some references.." This took several hours, as you can appreciate. WWV came up with it's a440 tone. I ascertained, that the melodica was sharp. The a on the melodica kept beating. I checked the a and f combination on the melodica. They were beating fast. I then next hour checked the melodica with wwv, I.E. the f on the melodica to wwv. The beat was closer to what I'd have expected. The melodica's f was running nearly to what would have been correct, had the rest of it been in the right place. Next hour, check the fork with WWV, and the melodica's f. There were differences. The fork was slightly sharp. Out came the file, and a few seconds filing at the crotch of the fork. Next hour. Was a bit closer. The fork was virtually there with the checks I had established with the melodica's f, and with what I was getting back from WWV. By ten that night, I was happy enough with the fork. I took the test, and got no complaints from the examiner re: the fork. regards > ----- Henry Brugsch
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC