Tuning

[Howard S. Rosen]

Dear Dave,

I am happy that you have taken up the tuning discussion on this list and if
you ever feel that this becomes tedious to our colleagues, I welcome your
comments to me personally at hsrosen@emi.net.

It's difficult for me to understand your letter as I am uncertain of your
gist.


> From: DGPEAKE@aol.com
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: Tuning
> Date: Sunday, September 28, 1997 12:07 AM
> 
> Then what are we listening to?  Pure 5ths wide open, or a chords and
> variations? 

Please rephrase.

> By stacking the 3rds, you are allowing an even progression.........

What do you mean by the term "stacking the 3rds"? Do you mean an even
progression of contiguous 3rds? If so, why do you think that anyone is
suggesting that you do not continue this practice? It's an excellent
technique for dividing ANY size octave into 3 equal intervals.

> therefore by tuning octaves beatless, you will have automatic stretch. 

In a piano, an "octave " is never one thing. It will vary in size depending
on whether you mean 2:1, or 4:2 etc. Because of inharmonicity, octaves are
never beatless. They might sound that way because some coincidental
partials are very strong. 

>... being a SAT user as well as an aural tuner, my readings are well
stretched.

How can your tunings be stretched with beatless octaves? This is a problem
with terminology. Your "beatless octaves" are probably of the 2:1 kind. In
that case your triple octaves will be flat. Regardless of your SAT
readings, a musical ear will find that unsatisfactory. I am reminded of the
time I attended a local technical given by 2 very famous pianotechs. Both
are highly technical and neither is a musician of any kind. Their treble
tuning was, in my opinion, musically unsatisfying. (But who am I?)

I guess different techs come from different directions. To me the last word
is not a printed readout, but "is it musically satisfying?"



Howard S. Rosen, RPT
Boynton Beach, Florida

hsrosen@emi.net