<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceName"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PlaceType"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space'> <div class=Section1> Fred, Richard,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Don Mannino gave a class a few years ago where he tuned two same model/similarly voiced, etc. grands; one stretched to (or beyond) the normal limits and one way under (not enough stretch). He hired a pianist to come and play for the class. This class was a revelation for me because it clearly showed a stark difference what the two pianos seemed to “like” (My words) as far as repertoire goes. IMO the stretched piano sounded much better on the melodic and faster pieces whereas it sounded too active on sustained chords, etc. The other piano sounded great on the ballads and awful (or at least not near as good) on the quicker and/or more high range melodic numbers. Of course, Don put the pianos at extremes. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My point is that the repertoire might require more or less stretch. (???) Maybe Jazz needs more and Bach needs less??? I don’t know, but maybe Don can address it. A happy middle ground might not be as easy to get for every kind of music.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Jim busby BYU<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: caut-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Fred Sturm Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:03 PM To: <st1:PersonName w:st="on">College and University Technicians</st1:PersonName> Subject: Re: [CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div> On 1/23/07 8:46 AM, "<a href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</a>" <<a href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p> </div> <div style='min-height: 15px'> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> 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. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div style='min-height: 15px'> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div>     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. <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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: <o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div>         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."<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Regards,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Fred Sturm<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType> of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">New Mexico</st1:PlaceName></st1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </div> </body> </html>