Dear Helmut, (And all of the rest of the folks on pianotech) > A professional tuner told me, that it took him seven years to >master it. That sounds about right! I have been studying piano tuning for about five years (only the last two or three years seriously) and I still count myself as a student. >He does no longer use strictly equal tuning. (stuff deleted) > He would not reveal the exact working of his system to me >because, he says, I am still too dumb to follow his explanations. I use equal temperament because that is all that I have studied to this point. I have heard that equal temperament is one of the hardest tuning systems to learn. There are quite a few different systems to use, and it seems like many tuners use different systems and yet arrive at the desired result, which is a well tuned piano. Mastering setting the pitch precisely at A-440 and getting all of the unisons tuned pure and getting the piano to have a stable tuning are prerequisites to learning some of the more esoteric elements of piano tuning. > Have you ever listened to a real pure Cmaj chord? Switch back >then to "equal" temperament and notice the dissonances. I can only >confirm, that it sounds like vinegar. This is the material, which >pours out of all the radios and TVs all over the world, because >all the misguided and miseducated musicians lost the ability to >notice the mistuning of their instruments. I have never had the opportunity to hear a piano tuned in anything other than equal temperament so I wouldn't know. I am sure that there is a difference that would completely change the tone and "color" of music played on these pianos. I personally _Love_ to listen to the different chords and intervals on a piano I have just tuned. I think that it is very inspiring musically to sit at a piano that has just been tuned in equal temperament. I may be misguided and miseducated, but that is all that I know so far. To me, equal temperament sounds wonderful. I do think that most people couldn't tell the difference between equal temperament and any of the "historical" tunings, just because they don't know what to listen for. Also, most people (in my experience) don't really notice when their piano is out of tune. They only have it tuned because they think they should, not because they notice the tuning is out. People that can't even tell when their piano is out of tune certainly wouldn't even know what tuning system was used. As long as the unisons and octaves sound good, they are happy. __________________________________ Allan Gilreath wrote: >Helmut, > >If your are really interested in the historical development of tuning >practices, may I suggest "Tuning" by Owen Jorgensen published >by Michigan State University Press isbn 0-87013-290-3. Probably >the best work on tuning that I have run across. I agree! Let me also recommend that you read back issues of the Piano Technicians JOURNAL. There are quite a few articles in the JOURNAL about historical temperaments. I especially liked the writings of Rick Baldassin, who was the tuning editor for the JOURNAL for a number of years. Also, there is a whole series of articles by Jack Greenfield of the Chicago Chapter of the PTG about different temperament systems which ran from at least 1984 to 1989 (that is the extent of my back issues of the JOURNAL!). >The beauty of equal temperament tuning is that while intervals >sound equally bad, they also sound equally good. > Everything is a trade off, or as they say you don't get something for >nothing. The historical tunings have a very definite >place when used in the right context and application. However, >while I use these temperaments for historical concerts, I'm not quite >ready to give up on equal temperament as a failed experiment. I am sure that in some circumstances historical temperaments would work very well and serve their purpose. But for most home tunings, equal temperament would probably be the best choice to use. ______________________________ Helmut Wabnig wrote again: >A Big Question: > In the U.S. it is common practice to start tuning at C. I would have to agree with several others who have written that in the U.S. it is more common to tune starting at A4 (also known as A-49). European practices may be to start tuning at C. >Now, tuning along the way to the first A, how do I make sure that >the A is exactly 440.000000 Hertz, the reference tone? If you are tuning A4 only to the A-440 Hz tuning fork, it will be hard to get the note set precisely where it should be. However, If you use a reference note such as F2 (which is a Major 17th below A4), it is much easier to compare the pitch of the tuning fork and the pitch of A4 to make sure that it is set properly. For more detailed information on this read the PACE Tuning Lesson #6 on Setting Pitch, written by Michael Travis, which is in the February 1994 issue of the JOURNAL. > But how do I tune my tuning fork? Again, let me refer you to an article in the JOURNAL. Jim Ellis wrote a fine article about tuning forks in the May 1995 issue of the JOURNAL, on pages 30-37. Endnote 5 on page 37 outlines what Mr. Ellis did to tune an A-440 Steel Bar. The process for tuning a tuning fork would be similar. Helmut, I'm glad you joined our conversation. Let me recommend that you join the Piano Technicians Guild (If you live in the United States). Joining the PTG is well worth your money in terms of the professional atmosphere of the Guild and the opportunities for continuing education. ___________________________________ I also enjoyed reading the postings on this subject by Bill Darst, Dennis Johnson, and several others. It is fascinating to read other people's opinions to help me form my own opinions. Sincerely, David A. Vanderhoofven Joplin, MO Associate Member, Kansas City Chapter PTG davander@aol.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC