Tuning Compromises Across a Challenging Break

[John Formsma]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Deutschle <oaronshoulder at gmail.com>wrote:

> John:
>
> I've thought about what you wrote below, have read similar
> statements before, and am not sure what it really means.
>
> Do you mean the natural stretch beyond the theoretical 1:2 frequency ratio
> that is necessary to achieve a chosen octave type? Or do you mean that for a
> given scaling, a certain octave type is best? If the latter, how would this
> be determined? Maybe you mean something else that I haven't thought of.
>

I don't consciously listen for coincident partials when setting A3 from A4.
I listen for the best overall octave, then check what octave width it is.
What usually works best is an A3-A4 octave between a 4:2 and 6:3. However,
certain pianos call for that octave to be between 4:2 and 2:1. Having tuned
many different types and sizes of pianos, I have a general idea of what will
work best before I get started. Obviously, that general idea comes from many
trials and errors. :-)  And, it's fairly simple to readjust if what is
initially tried doesn't work.

-- 
JF


>
> Btw, I am strictly an aural tuner, but understand inharmonicity.
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:31 PM, John Formsma <formsma at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> What helps most is getting the correct stretch for the piano. If you do
>> this, the break becomes less of an issue. (On some pianos, there will always
>> be inconsistencies, but that's unchangeable until the scale is changed.)
>> It's helpful to start with a temperament that spans two octaves. But
>> eventually, I think the more one tunes aurally, the better one can hear what
>> will work best even if he is working within one octave for the temperament.
>>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20081021/ada13b84/attachment.html