David Andersen's whole-note tuning

[John Formsma]

On Dec 1, 2007 8:24 PM, Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net> wrote:

>
> >The different way of listening is that you
> > don't consciously focus on individual partials.  You listen to all the
> > partials blending  together, and try to focus on the natural beat.
>
> I must admit this has always baffled me. Is it possible to do
> this any other way? The beats heard *are* natural, aren't
> they? How does one listen to a specific partial, excluding
> everything else?


Yes, the beats are natural.  But you focus differently, which doesn't really
seem to make sense unless you're sitting at a piano and everything suddenly
clicks.

When I first started to tune aurally, it was explained to me that we had to
listen at the 4:2 level if we were tuning that kind of octave.  Likewise if
tuning a 6:3 octave in the bass, where those two partials are prominent.
 Get those partials beatless, and you're there.  The Tuning Source Book even
recommends listening to the 6:3 partials in the bass -- tuning by them as
you're roughing in the bass on the first pass.

Part of what Virgil teaches is that once a unison is tuned, the combined
sound of all three strings will usually be a little flatter than one single
string sounding alone.  His method takes that into account.

Virgil's way is different, but not that it's different partials that we're
hearing.  It's listening for a different type sound.  To me, it makes
octaves easier to hear.  When the octave comes into place, you just know
it's right.  This is most noticeable to me in the treble, so I'll try to
explain what I hear there.  I try to listen to the whole sound (all partials
together and not just one set) to get the best blend of all of them.  This
translates to hearing the slightest beat on the sharp side of the octave.
 When the unison is tuned, the beat will no longer be heard.  The octave
will sound pure, as will the double and triple octaves.  (Of course,
strictly and scientifically speaking, they will not be pure at all levels,
but it's the type sound one is listening for.)


> Is this a fundamental [sic] duh, or am I on
> the wrong planet - again. I still don't get it. Who's tuning
> by unnatural beats, and how can we stop them?
>
>
> > It would probably be helpful to read Virgil's book.  I was fortunate to
> > have attended his class two different times.  But I've not yet purchased
>
> > his book.
>
> I've read his journal article, and attended one class, and
> it's still a well - yea - and(?) thing. Somewhat short of
> helpful. Either it's a natural job for Obvious Man, or I'm
> hopelessly deluded (a possibility not remotely out of the
> question).
>

All I can say is that it works for me.  I've done it for a number of years.
 And I also do the "normal" stripping and tuning of all middle strings, then
the unisons.  Every time I tune unisons as I go, the tuning sounds better.
 Always.

I've noticed sometimes that tuning unisons as I go yields a tuning that
could be described as more pure sounding.  There also seems to be more power
to the individual notes and octaves.

When tuning with strip muting, the tuning still sounds good.  But it has a
different quality to the sound.  It has more of a "shimmering" kind of
sound.  There is more interaction, and you can hear more blending of sounds
together than from tuning unisons as you go.

I'm sure David will jump in with his better explanation.
-- 
JF

www.formsma.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20071201/4acdf447/attachment.html