<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> Hi, Ed, Fred & All I just read Fred's post after having written the epistle below.  So I'll share a couple comments to Fred's email:  I think it's the sharing of "what we do" that may tell us whether there's a concert grand standard out there.   I've never used "quads" but I'll give it a shot.  With that, here's my epistle: Where is everybody?  We're in the midst of finals here, so things have slowed down considerably for me.  In any case, regardless of the lackluster respone, I'll be happy to engage in hearty discussion. <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:A440A@aol.com">A440A@aol.com</a> wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <pre wrap="">hot damn, this oughta be good! </pre> </blockquote> That's what I thought.  I guess we're the only two with free time right now. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <pre wrap=""> Richard writes: << I'm curious about what the "standard" for concert tuning might be. How do you tune a concert grand in equal temperament (9' Steinway, for example)? What are your standards? Standards are probably non-existant as far as what the tunings are. Unisons must meet a standard to satisfy me, but in terms of stretch, there are different widths that I use for different venues, and also for different uses. In the recording studios, where the piano is often simply playing a rhythm guitar part, I compress the bass so that even though the fullness created (by alignment of low notes' partials with mid note fundamentals) might be lessened, the problems of ensemble tuning are avoided. Those problems are usually from bass players that tune to Korg tuners and wonder why the fully stretched piano is flatter than they are. I know, I know, they should learn what is what, but I am there for the money, and when the studio rate is ticking, time is money and it is no place for inharmonicity lessons. </pre> </blockquote> I agree with most of what you say here, especially the part about tuning for bass players.  The faculty bass player here wants nearly pure 4ths going down from the temperament.  The fifths sound terrible to me, but that's what he wants.  As far as the different stretch widths, that's what I'm trying to really get at with this thread. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <pre wrap="">By the same token, if I know I am tuning for solo piano, I let the thing stretch itself to a greater degree, </pre> </blockquote> Yes. The piano tells you what it wants. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <pre wrap="">and if it is a gospel session, I usually have pure triple octaves by the time I get to C6. They(the divinely inspired musicians) seem to like this. Otherwise, stretching no farther than purifying the double octave from C5 on up works for the great majority. </pre> </blockquote> Do you have an aural test for the triple octave or do you just play the triple octave to listen for beats or lack thereof?  It seems to me that the triple octave involves a double stretch factor because the notes going down from A4 are stretched down and the notes above A4 are stretched up.  Many of the double octaves also have this double stretch factor.  It seems to me that A4 is basically the continental divide for tuning.  Measurements across that divide have rivers flowing away from each other.  This means the piano automatically sets up a double stretch in the double and triple octaves because they straddle the divide.  But the single octaves don't have to be overstretched because most will fall on one side or the other of the double strech factor.  The midrange is where the single octaves straddle the divide making for more critical compromises.  Fourths may have to beat faster and 5ths should be purer <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I know pianos vary, but what are </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">you personally trying to achieve when you tune concert grands?< </blockquote> Satistfying the customer is job one.  My point is that if we have a good standard and meet the criteria, then the customer will be satisfied.  I think the standard is more clear cut than we've recognized.  I'll state it below. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">1. When you set the temperament, how wide is your temperament octave, </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">4:2, or wider? Once again, it depends. If I am tuning for a Rach. concerto, I know that I will want a lot of brilliance in the top end, so I begin with a wider temperament than otherwise. If it is a Mozart chamber piece, I shrink that temperament octave to somewhere near a 4:2. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">If you choose wider, are you comfortable with the </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">compromised (i.e. faster beating) 4ths, even if you get nicer, cleaner fifths? If there is a slow roll in your single octaves in the 5th octave, there will be some near-pure fifths and the fourths will begin to approach their limit. This is more evident on bright pianos, so how much tempering the fourths can stand is somewhat instrument dependant. </pre> </blockquote> There are two factors here--voicing and physics.  Pianos that are bright have to be tuned cleanly or fast beats in the 5th (the 6:4 partials), the 4th (4ths too wide) and the octave (octaves stretched too far) get in the way .  In fact overly bright pianos need to be voiced to really tune them at all because there's simply too much going on and the piano may be virtually untunable.  But it seems to me the physics still applies.  A mellower piano may hide a slow roll in an interval, but it's still there.  A standard still applies.  I don't think you should go against the physics in order to over stretch intervals to achieve  brightness or brilliance. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">3. When checking octaves and double octaves, do you strive for equal </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">beating 3rds, 10ths, 17ths, or do the 10ths beat faster than the 3rds, and the 17ths faster still? I was taught to always make the 10th faster than the 3rd, the 17th faster than the 10th. (B. Garlick). I follow this in my tuning, making judgements of HOW much faster, depending on venue. Making an equal beating between the 10th and 3rd can produce a very clean sounding octave but the overall effect seems to be a dead sounding piano!</pre> </blockquote> I also was taught that 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths should beat as you learned from B. Garlick.  To my way of thinking the paramater for how fast depends on the double octave.  If I want to keep the double octave pure, then the difference in beat speeds among the three intervals must be minimal.  If I'm lazy, I can tolerate from 2 to 4 beats in the double octave and the beats in the 3rd, 10th and 17th will be more widely different.   <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">4. In the top octave do you tune clean 2:1 octaves, clean 4:1 double </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">octaves, or do you stretch more than clean double octaves? There is, once again, a lot of leeway up there. It can all sound good, but some particular uses of the piano can profit from more or less stretch. A really well integrated tuning will begin the stretch in the temperament that creates the desired amount of sharpness in the top octave without ever seeming to damage anything inbetween. Virgil Smith is a master of this. It creates a very "open" sound to the piano. However, I have also had customers that felt that the piano sounded "tense" rather than "open". </pre> </blockquote> Your customers' varying responses are interesting.  I've always liked Virgil Smith's tunings and tried to make sense of his descriptions of what he does.  To me he lets the piano dictate the stretch according to his "standard" which I think is definable.   <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">If you stretch more than clean double octaves, how do you know how much </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">more stretch you're introducing? When the fourths in the 5th octave call attention to themselves, you may have gone too far, too fast. </pre> </blockquote> So 4ths determine the maximum width for the octaves, if I understand you correctly.  Is it possible to actually have 5ths that are wide and still keep the 4ths under control?  I tend to think that pure 5ths are the limiting factor along with the speed of the 4ths. <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Are you comfortable with the fast beating single octaves? </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> No. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">What test(s) do you use when stretching beyond the </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">clean double octave, especially in the last 1/2 of the top octave? Arpeggios, ears, tastes, and mood of the day. </pre> </blockquote> I prefer the pure double octave because it seems I can get more consistent results aurally.  Also if I use my ETD, I can get good readings.   When I listen to the 17ths, they're beating plenty fast and so is the single octave.  Why would I want to push the notes higher and give up the consistency and wideness I already have with the double octave? The problem I have with the folks that tune pure triple octaves in octave 7 is how do they do that consistently and why would they want the 17ths and single octaves obnoxiouly fast?   <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid18c.19d287c2.2be7d1d6@aol.com"> <pre wrap=""> Maybe the greater amounts of stretch are better suited for "exciting" music, and the smaller octaves promote the sonority found in more "mellow" music. Cross reference that with the voicing of the particular piano involved and there really isn't a "standard" I can define. Ed Foote RPT <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/">www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html">www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html</a> </pre> </blockquote> I'll stick my neck out and say that I think there is a standard.  I think it would work for any concert grand and be a consistently reachable goal  Here it is. 1)  5ths no wider than pure in octaves 2, 3, 4, 5 2)  4ths no wider than 2 bps (maybe 3 bps), especially in octaves 3, 4, & 5 3)  double octaves pure to no more that 4 bps wide 4)  3rds, 10ths, 17ths either pure or slightly increasing in speed, the difference determined by the double octave (pure to 3 or 4 beats wide, or your mood of the day) 5) single octaves in  octaves 2, 3, 4, 5 should not be more that 1 - 2 beats wide depending upon step 4 above 6) octave 7 no wider than pure double octaves 7) 17ths in octave 1  = no faster than the slowest temperament 3rd. I haven't brought up bass tuning too much, except for point # 7.  But I think the "standard" applies--clean 5ths, reasonable 4ths (1-3 bps wide), 6:3 octaves to C2, slow beating 17ths from C2 to the bottom of the piano. So what say you, Ed.?  Is this standard too broadly defined? Richard West </body> </html>