On Oct 16, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ed Sutton wrote: > Kent- > > Have you been tuning some small, compromised scale pianos as well as > larger grands? Sure. I'll try to do a recording of one. > What do you hear in the mid-range 3rds, 4ths,5ths and 8vas? > Particularly on small pianos. A good tuning. > > How would these tunings do if used for an exam master tuning? These are a bit wider than is normal for a master tuning, but IMO they could work fine except perhaps in the high treble where the exam calls for clean single octaves. > > Are there any user choices to be made or is it basically a hard- > wired program? Hard-wired. > > And does it tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a > tuning pin? Of course. More if you use OnlyPure. Naturally. > > Ed Sutton > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kent Swafford > To: College and University Technicians > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:45 AM > Subject: Re: [CAUT] P-12ths was: Tuning a Steinway D and > aBosendorferImperial together > > Fred, your post is thoroughly reasonable. > > I have been trying to understand Stopper for almost 2 years now. > There are some obstacles. First there are language and cultural > barriers. And second, there is the simple fact that Stopper is > trying to make money from his discoveries; his vagueness may not be > a matter of not "grasping the complexities" as much as they are > simply wishing to keep the knowledge proprietary. > > But make no mistake, Stopper's credentials are solid, and in 4 > months of intensive use of PureTuner (my nickname for Tunic > OnlyPure) I have only been able to corroborate his claims, not > refute them. > > > Kent > > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote: > > What I am trying to do is to point out that, IMO, "there is nothing > magic" about the 19th root of 3 as a basis for tuning. It is simply > indistinguishable from other mathematical ways of establishing equal > half step relationships in the real, inharmonic world of piano tuning. > Stopper argues otherwise (see his article, referenced in a post I > sent previously). I don't find his arguments at all compelling. > Others may. He makes the 19th root of 3 division the basis for the > "Stopper comma," which he makes great claims for. He does say that > to the "additional stretch" produced by beginning with a pure 12th > must be added the inharmonicity of the piano, though his explanation > of how this is done is VERY vague, and doesn't demonstrate a very > good grasp of the complexities involved. An example of his > explanation of inharmonicity and tuning: > "The inharmonicity itself pushes the whole scale away from the > theoretical frequencies derived by the scale functional formula. The > inharmonicity is already considered when tuning aurally, since the > ear makes an integration of the harmonics to a "virtual pitch." If > an aural tuner tunes a slight beat-rate-narrow fifth, that fifth > remain about the same amount beat-rate-narrow in instruments with > different inharmonicity, wheras the absolute frequency deviation is > up to some cents on stiff strings in the treble." > He claims "the recent discovery of the Supersymmetry between the > beats and the frequencies" based on his tuning. Perhaps if it is > demonstrated to me, I will be blown away. I am skeptical. Actually, > he seems more focused on electronic and other "essentially harmonic" > instruments than on acoustic pianos. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20081017/d361e117/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC