Hey there Fred :-) comment interspersed:
Hi Rik,
For me it is a question of where to put emphasis, what is most
useful to obsess about. In tuning, I find I obsess more and more on
unisons. Going back to some of the early subject matter in this
thread, to string coupling, I'd say that while coupling occurs,
there is a difference between a coupled unison and a true unison,
and it is both apparent to the ear and to the ETD (though sometimes
there needs to be some interpretation of the ETD output or fiddling
with position of the devise relative to the strings). Coupling
could be said to be the point at which "beating stops." Which means
that there aren't any full "loud soft" cycles. There is, however,
still an interference pattern, and we hear it as a wow (to try to
put it in letter form. I think we all know what the sound is). Then
there is the point where all that wow disappears, and the unison is
completely clear.
Yes.. I like your description of that and it immediately brings to
minds some posts I wrote along those lines a few years back. I used a
phrase something along the lines of "a single beat that doesnt repeat
itself" to describe your "wow". We are way past anything that can be
called a period beat per second. Sometimes however, no matter what you
do you can not completely get this to disappear... and why is a matter
that has taken a good deal of my attention of late. No doubt there are
several things involved, but all that is good for another thread by
itself to be sure. To what degree any of this constitutes a difference
between a "coupled unison" and a "true unison" I am unsure. I am not
really quite sure what you mean by either term in this context...
especially the second of the two. I would argue tho, that there are at
least a few intervals equally important and equally subject to this same
kind of behavior as the unison is.. and various alignments of these will
color a tuning much in the same way one can color a unison. One can, for
example leave the "wow" present... stretched out as long as one can get
it to emulate a kind of bloom effect. Or one can go for as clear a
sign-wave like unison one can get... living with the uneven degree of
falseness of all sorts that is always present to some greater or lesser
degree.
Now if a whole piano is tuned with all unisons as close as possible
to what I describe as completely clear, the sound of the instrument
is pretty dramatically different from an instrument where there is
still some wow in many if not most unisons. I think that difference
is quite a bit greater than what can be achieved by fooling around
with tweaking the placement of pitches relative to one another.
Always assuming a reasonable set of parameters as a starting
point. I am quite aware that many people swear by many subtle
alterations of pitch "by aural means" and others swear by their own
formulae of non- equal. It's a controversial topic. The position I
am taking is quite naturally subject to the criticism you offer: "I
am saying it doesn't matter, hence I am saying that nothing
matters" (to take it to its logical conclusion). But, hey, I have a
fairly tough hide and can take it. In any case, I am certainly not
saying "nothing matters," but simply putting priorities where I
think they really lie. With respect to tuning, I think unisons, and
every single unison on the piano, are by far the biggest factor,
and tend to be discussed far less than this or that magic formula
for temperament and/or stretch.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu
I would agree with your opening line here... indeed started in on that
as I ended my last. But your second sentence here is perhaps where we
part ways... if for no other reason then that same kind of decision
about how clean several dominant intervals are (like the 5th, 12th,
octaves, double octaves) are also subject to this same effect. And the
kinds of coloring differences one has to choose from are very much along
the same lines as with the unison itself. Those subtle alterations of
pitch "by aural means" are exactly along the same lines IMHO. And I
would indeed like to see a person completely "earless" use a machine to
get those "wowless" unisons (or other intervals) with any degree of
consistency that can match the highly trained ear.... let alone that ear
working in concert as it were with an ETD in a very purposeful and
informed manner.
As to what matters and doesn't in the greater scheme of things...
Grin... it was not my intention to put you in a position where the
toughness of you hide was a needed friend to you. I was just trying to
point out that in using the <<personal prestige>> argument with regard
to why some aural tuners "want to believe"... one can find equal
prestige motivations the other way around... and with just as little
real worth beyond pointing out that perhaps our egos from time to time
cloud our ability to see as objectively clearly as we should. But to
be sure... that works both ways in this regard and with equal force. As
a tool for getting to the truth of this area of mutual interest... I
suspect that reasonings value to be quite limited.
No... should we really want to get to the root of such things as ... to
what degree does this that or the other tuning <<bit>> matter or not...
we need to actually design tests that are equipped to answer the right
questions. Such as... Are there people out there that can actually hear
with any (statistical) degree of significance the difference between a
machine tuning and an ear tuning. I would argue there are, just as
there are folks out there with a heightened degree of pitch sensitivity...
which brings me to a closing thought.... isnt it curious that in all
these discussions about ear/vs machine... that <<perfect pitch>> folks
never get into the act ? I would think that especially in the bass
regions of lesser instruments the weaknesses of the machine would quite
clearly affect ones sens of absolute tone .... :)
Cheers
RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC