<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] descriptive tuning (was FAC)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Hi Jim,     The devil, as usual, is in the details. What did Don M mean by wide and narrow stretch? Perhaps he will weigh in and tell us. I suspect he did what would be relatively easy, and used, perhaps, RCT, tuning one with the #9 preset, the other with a #1 or #2. Now this certainly meets a definition of wide and narrow stretch, but it is measured largely focusing on octave size: choosing that size and using it throughout the range (probably oversimplification, but true at least in large part).     For my own part, I dislike the sound of RCT #9 in the midrange. The octaves it produces are too wide in the midrange to my ear. I personally begin in RCT with a #5 preset (right in the very middle of the road), and expand the high treble using “Custom EQ.” That pretty consistently gives me results I like. The octaves I tune in octaves 6 and 7, on some pianos, may be much wider than some would tolerate. I find them quite tolerable there, and would find the triple octaves produced via narrower octaves to be objectionable. One man’s opinions.     The idea of tuning a piano (specifically stretch) to match repertoire is not a new one. Horace Greeley has written along those lines many times, for instance. Of course, this approach leaves the question, what do you do with a mixed rep concert?     On the other side of the coin, Richard West wants to have a consensus opinion about what an “ideal” concert instrument tuning would be. I’m more in favor of “Vive la difference!” I prefer variety of opinion and practice (just as well, because that’s what we are certain to have among crotchety, opinionated piano techs <G>). We should all experiment, and decide based on our own ears and experience, not just follow some dictum from whatever guru we choose to follow. One good reason: we are likely to have misinterpreted what the guru wanted to say (might be the guru’s fault, not having said it precisely enough).     Going back to Don Mannino’s class, I think (if I have guessed right about what Don did) it may illustrate what I was trying to get at in the beginning of this thread: the problem of focusing on the octave itself, on the octave’s own size, as opposed to looking at how that octave fits into an overall picture. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico   On 2/1/07 5:33 PM, "Jim Busby" <jim_busby@byu.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Fred, Richard, 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. 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. Jim busby BYU </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>