Dear Brent and Gina: I'm going to jump in and mention a couple of things which you have both been discussing. On Mon, 5 Aug 1996 EugeniaCar@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 96-08-05 12:53:18 EDT, Brent.Fischer@asu.edu writes: > <<I am eager to see where it can be of assistance but I have several > questions that have always been unclear.>> > > Dear Brent, > Thanks for your response. Let me say up front that I am not an expert on the > SAT. I use it, as do many others, only as one of my basic tools. I find that > the SAT enables me to increase my stability and decrease my tuning time. I > always use my ears as the final determining factor. Hopefully, one day I will > have observed and used Jim Coleman Sr's method of tuning unisions with the > SAT enough that I will trust myself to do likewise. Thus stated, I will try > to answer your questions: > > <<Can you record your finest tuning and use it without still having to nudge > treble stretch or make a minute adjustment in the temperment ? I'll break in here to explain just a little. By the time one has worked out a good tuning for a particular Concert piano, I find that it is seldom necessary to do any more tweaking, especially not in the temperament. Some of us are still growing in our approach to the amount of stretch in the high treble, but the rest of it is pretty much standard stuff by now. In my approach toward the ultimate, I still play around with varying the stretch numbers in order to provide a smooth graduation in more extreme sharpening of the high treble, say from F6 on up. It will be interesting to see if the new Reyburn CyberTuner allows more control octave by octave in the initial tuning stage. One thing I like about the present SAT is that one can gradually stretch up the entire treble by altering the A4 stretch num. Then for additional stretch, one can alter the C6 stretch num. to greatly increase the sharpening of the high treble. All of this without any special fuming futzing around. This is the way I tuned the Yam C3 for my class at the Convention this summer, with the exception that I did change 4 notes in each octave in order to make it a Coleman4 Well Temperament. I did this latter to see if anyone in the class could tell just from playing that something was "wrong" with the temperament. NO ONE detected it just from hearing the piano played. They were quite impressed with the overall sound, which I think was due primarily to the kind of extreme stretch and the impeccable unisons, which incidentally were all machine tuned. I just loved it when Virgil Smith played it and said: "My, this sounds like my tuning." I really believe that this proves conclusively that Unison tuning is more important than Octaves, and that Octaves are much more important than temperament. <Jim> <deleted> > > <<Isn't brilliance in the instrument developed by taking the stretch to the > limit without becoming dissonant and harsh? <Brent> YES <Jim> > Without being able to explain why, my answer is yes. My ears tell me when > that limit is reached, bearing in mind all the necessary compromises we make > when we tune. The tuning I have stored in the memory reflects that final > result. <Gina> I think Gina probably does more tweaking from the standard SAT tunings than I do. Now that I know how to control the stretch, I find that I don't want to do much tweaking from the results that I get with the stretch number alterations. <Jim> > <<Can the SAT measure that point in octave tuning where there is no > discernable change in beat speed but only increase in amplitude because your > at the top of the stretch? In Aural tuning, it is very difficult to discern between two 17ths that are 1/8 or 1/16 beats per second different when the speed is already at 15 beats per second. But as Brent suggests, it is possible to tweak the octave up till a bloom or swell occurs without hearing a noticeable difference in beat rate. This can however, be measured with the Electronic devices. <Jim> > This is one of those questions I am technically unable to answer. Maybe > someone more knowledgeable than I can help us out. Jim Sr recently pointed > out that he is using arpeggios. I too have used arpeggios for many years to > achieve a stretch in the top that is right for my ears. When I initially > store a tuning, I tune to where I want it to be, measure what I've tuned, and > then put it in the memory. When I am tuning upper octaves, I rely more on what's going on with the 17ths, but more importantly what's going on with the octave 5th and the double octave 5ths. Arpeggios are just for general impression, you can't tune accurately with them.. <Jim> > <<The crafting of the tuning I think should come from the mind and heart and > not a circle of red lights.>> "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might (heart)." from the Bible. I believe we all ought to have the mind in gear before placing the hands in motion, even when using machines. <Jim> > Precisely! I think I finally understand where much of the controversy comes > from. If I am reading your comments correctly, you are not aware that the > tuning in the SAT, measured by stopping the circle of red lights, is > completely changeable to whatever the person using it wants it to be. And > that is the beauty of the SAT. It will give you a generic tuning that in most > cases will be completely acceptable. But for those notes that are not > acceptable, you the tuner have the capability to change it to what your ear > tells you *is* correct. And from what I learned and heard in Dearborn, this > is also the beauty of the Reyburn CyberTuner. Both of these tools can and > will only help the person using them to become a better tuner when they are > used properly. What more can we ask? > > Gina Thanks for listening. I included much of Gina and Brent' comments to keep it all in context. Jim Coleman, Sr. (AZ)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC