[CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)

[Fred Sturm]

On 1/23/07 8:46 AM, "rwest1 at unl.edu" <rwest1 at unl.edu> wrote:

We technicians claim that the "artistry" of tuning is a matter of  
personal choice.  Some people choose wider octaves than others.  On  
some level I agree.  But I also believe that the degree of choice is  
a lot narrower than has been described to me over the years.  In  
other words a good concert tuning doesn't have as much lattitude for  
choosing as we've come to believe.

     After thinking a little longer, I’d like to address this a  
little differently. First, I agree with Richard’s statement for the  
most part. I doubt there is a significant difference in the range of,  
say, C2 to G6 in most concert tunings (9’ grand). Differences, where  
they occur, are chiefly in the bottom octave and the top octave and a  
half. There are those who go for wider octaves in the bottom octave  
(I don’t happen to be among them), probably less than half of all  
tuners at a guess, but a substantial number. And there are those who  
go for pushing the stretch limit on the sharp side in the high treble  
(I am among those), probably again less than half at a guess, but a  
substantial number.
	The differences are perhaps smaller than the rhetoric would lead one  
to believe, and this is especially true from the point of view of the  
average listener to music. There won't be anything obvious, "this one  
sounds really weird" or the like. I do think there can be a  
perceptible difference in the sense of "The piano sounds really alive  
and sparkling tonight" versus "The piano sounds fine, the unisons are  
clear" or perhaps "The piano sounds a bit dull." At least the  
romantic in me wants to believe this. Little details adding up to  
make a difference to the whole, something on the order of what  
happens when a piano is prepped. The piano is "fine" and to spec to  
begin with. Someone who knows what he's doing spends two days on it,  
tweaking travel, square, alignment, mating, aftertouch, yadda yadda.  
Result? "Wow! What did you do to the piano? It's like a different  
instrument!" Only tiny details have changed, but the overall effect  
can be enormous.
	What started this exchange was a comment I made about focus on  
octaves. There seems to be a bit of an obsession about octaves seen  
individually these days. From one angle, the ETDs all have various  
"octave styles," either pre-sets or "on the fly" decisions. From  
another angle, perhaps rising largely from Virgil Smith's teaching,  
we have the aural "listen to the whole octave" notion, coming up with  
the very best sound for that particular octave.
	My reaction to this is to say "Look at the larger picture. The  
individual octave is just a building block." I like to look at a  
tuning as the weaving of partial ladders, trying to come up with the  
optimum overall meshing of all those partials. In practical terms:
	In the bass, I try to match the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th partials  
of the note being tuned as closely as possible to the notes an  
octave, 12th, double octave, 19th, and triple octave above. This  
usually works quite well without undue problem, with compromises  
needed usually only over large inharmonicity breaks. Where there are  
problems, I often sacrifice the sound of the individual octave to the  
larger intervals. (On concert grands, 12th and 16th partials may come  
into play as well). Aurally, the m3M17 test is basic for this style  
of tuning. Following the m3M6, play the M17 (eg, A1C2, C2A2, C2E4).  
These are all focused on the partial at E4. If you want a wide 19th,  
A1C2 should be slower than C2E4 (and, obviously, if you choose a  
narrow, or a beatless 19th, A1C2 will be slower or equal). Using an  
ETD with 6th partial being read for tuning, it is simply a matter of  
playing the note a 19th above and observing which way the display moves.
	In the mid/high treble, I am matching the first partial of the note  
to be tuned with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th partials of the notes  
an octave, 12th, double octave, 19th, and triple octave below. This  
tends to work well especially on larger pianos, at least through C6,  
often higher, with very little compromise needed. At some point,  
usually above C6, there usually is a divergence between 19th and  
triple octave and the smaller intervals. I used to compromise between  
them. For the last few years I have experimented with ignoring the  
smaller intervals and matching 19th and triples. I have found  
acceptance without comment of this changed tuning style. I think it  
sounds better myself. 	Aurally, again, the m3M17 test is basic for  
this approach. With ETD, one is tuning the first partial in this  
area, so one just plays notes 3 octaves, 19th, 2 octaves, 12th,  
octave below and observes the lights to see what the relationships are.
	In sum, I am not so much urging everyone to tune in the same style  
as I do. Rather, I am urging everyone to pay attention to the larger  
picture, to know where the note is tuned in relation to larger  
intervals, instead of "seeking perfect octaves."
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070127/461e0853/attachment.html