<div dir="ltr"><div>I agree with you Richard. Except the use of a concert grand as a standard. I am tuning a lot of new asian pianos and their "stretch" is much narrower than than even a Baldwin console of 50 years ago. Virgil Smith made the comment that he could take a Steinway 1 stretch number higher (RCT) than a Yamaha. Therefore I think the paradigm should be based on the stringing scales and the wire used. Japanese wire doesn't have the warmth of the mapes or roslau. Different partials will be accentuated. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I use the fourth/ fifth ratio to determine the octave width. If the 5th is too pure and the corresponding 4th too noisy, the octave is too wide. If the 4th and 5th sound alike, the octave is too narrow. Then I add the third to see if it sounds pretty. With the RCT, I tune A3 A4 C#4 D4 E4. There are two 4ths, 2 5ths, a chord and the start to the contigous 3rds. There is a pretty spot in there some place....... Really it's what I like and not so much what the ETD sets up for me. Everybody has a different opinion.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Keith Roberts<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:19 AM, <a href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</a> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rwest1@unl.edu">rwest1@unl.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Part of the problem in evaluating any tuning, electronic or aural, is the lack of a concrete tuning paradigm in our profession. Good tuners all understand the variables and the problems but when I see attempts to describe our tunings, I don't see an adequate unified description of an aural tuning other than in general terms. Whenever I hear people say the thirds are "too wide," I always want to know what "too wide" is. There was a time when anything wider than a pure third was "too wide." Therefore it seems that trying to judge a tuning without having a paradigm to use as a measuring stick is futile, whether the tuning is a result of electronic "judgements" or aural "judgements."<br>
<br>What I mean by a unified paradigm involves comparing the various sections (bass, tenor, temperament, treble, upper treble) in ways that really describe their relationship to one one another. My question is this: What compromises work best? Piano tuning is nothing but compromise since inharmonicity won't allow us to make every interval pure. The factors that don't seem to come up very often in tuning discussions are balance, volume, practicality, and situation.<br>
<br>Balance: Since the discussion has centered on tuning pure 12ths, I have to ask what that decision does to 4ths as you move out of the temperament area. When you get to F#5, what happens to the 17th, D3-F#5? Since intervals are expanded higher above the temperament and lower below the temperament, does the 17th become "too wide?" By narrowing the P12th would the balance between the various sections of the piano be improved, i.e., would the 17ths be slower and the 4ths less noisy? What's the standard?<br>
<br>Volume: Not enough has been written about how the volume level of the various partials contribute to the overall sound of the piano. If, for example, you choose to tune perfect 12ths, does the interaction of the partials in other intervals actually enhance the sound of the piano? In other words does one compromise actually favor an increase in volume and sustain in other intervals? Does tuning a pure 4:1 double octave actually enhance the sound of the two single octaves that make up the double octave? What's the standard?<br>
<br>Practicality: I think that one reason tuners expand octaves has nothing to do with achieving a good result. I think we all have a general "standard" that we're shooting for, but we don't have all day to try to achieve the standard. It's always a safe bet to leave a note a little high in the treble and a little low in the bass. Having a fairly wide berth on the high side in the treble speeds up the tuning process; we can finish one piano and move on to the next more quickly. Therefore over the years wider octaves and wider 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths have become more acceptable just because that kind of tuning is easier. To keep the 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths under control, i.e., not "too wide" while also maintaining tuning stability is more difficult.<br>
<br>Situation: In the conundrum of pure thirds versus "jangly" supposedly equal tempered thirds, the location of the instrument makes a difference. I was made more keenly aware of that last summer when I discussed this with a technician who does a lot of tuning for a recording studio. She said that many engineers and artists prefer "narrower" tunings in a recording situation. I think a concert hall tuning needs to be "wide" and that a home tuning should be somewhere in between.<br>
<br>Although I've found this email thread interesting, it doesn't mean much to me because I don't know what anybody really means when they describe a tuning as "bettter" or "worse" with intervals that are described as being "too wide" or "too narrow." We don't have a unified standard. As I've stated in other internet discussions on this general topic, I generally believe that a unified standard is possible to describe especially in regard to concert grands, as a starting point. Although I'll agree that there's some latitude for personal preferences, I think the range of latitude is less than generally accepted and often creates less than desirable results.<br>
<br>Richard West<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div>