Jim, thank you for the very good explanation of how and why the way you tune. I have heard of Steve Fairchild's program, and in fact created my own very similar program. I also agree with what you wrote concerning how difficult it is to get readings on the 2nd and 3rd partials. At the recommendation of Al Sanderson & Steve Fairchild I even tried connecting two SAT's together for double filtering of these partials. I am not surprised to learn that the RCT experiences the same problems. This problem of accurately measuring the 2nd and 3rd partials caused me tremendous grief in trying to make a program that truely gives the best possible temperament (using all intervals from minor 3rds through major 6ths) and the best octave tuning. Obviously, Steve Fairchild's (or any other) program works no better than the data that is given as input. So where are we now? In my experiments, I was trying to prove one way or another (mostly to myself) whether a temperament based upon an octave was better than one based upon a tenth. For those who have not been exposed to a temperament larger than a octave, the tenth is chosen because it has all 13 major thirds that should progress evenly in beat rates. Well, the same logic can be said of a temperament of an eleventh, so that all 13 perfect fourths are included, or going one step further, a temperament of a twelfth so that all 13 perfect fifths can be used. The conclusion I reached was that including more notes into the temperament did not solve problems, it just introduced more, like a quantum leap! I also wish to clarify my past posts concerning Virgil Smith. I have nothing against Virgil, and I am sure what he does works for him. I do believe that it is a gross mistake to teach inexperienced tuners that all FA major thirds should beat at 7 bps regardless of the piano. This "theroretically correct" beat rate progression, referred to in Braid White's book can only confuse the beginning tuner, because few pianos really tune out to give these beat rates. I also believe that we do a gross mistake in teaching beginner tuners to "buy my ETD, it will set a perfect temperament for you". These fallacies only confuse the inexperienced, and create more 'TOONERS" as I have described. In suggesting another "tune-off" using a poorly scaled piano, these fallacies are exposed to the hilt when trying to use set beat rates or a computated temperament that is suited only to pianos which have smooth inharmonicity curves. Hopefully, no hard feelings from Virgil or anyone else. I appologize if I stepped on toes. Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote: > Hi Dave and the rest of the list: > > You wrote: > > " I'd sure like to see the computer that can make > judgments whereby moving one note a little sharp or flat improves some > intervals while compromising others. No such computer or computations > from one does or ever will replace the human ear." > > Welcome to the real world. It has already been done by Steve Fairchild in > his Aural Tuning Emulator. He sells his program for $500.00. You have > options of inputting your own personal preferences as far as Stretch is > concerned. It considers each note as to how it fits with neighboring 3rds, > 10ths, octaves, double octaves, octave 5ths etc. and then makes a > determination as to how closely it can accommodate each of those to the best > possibility. It takes several iterations of the program to finally > determine the best location. Isn't that what we try to do aurally > except we try to do it in one or two passes? > > As I understand it, you were driven to the measured interval method because > the SOT was not accurate enough in its note to note relationships and also > the calibration was subject to gradual change due to the nature of > resistors. I have done a good bit of that also for the same reasons. > When the SAT came out, those reasons disappeared. I have demonstrated over > and over that if one tunes very accurately with the SAT, you are really hard > put to make any improvements in the temperament area aurally. Learning to > utilize the 4 LED measuring with the SAT can greatly increase one's > accuracy with the machine. I can explain that in much greater detail if > there are enough people interested in it. > > One of the distinct advantages in using the SAT is that the entire > temperament area is tuned listening to the 4th partials. In tuning 4ths, > the 4th partial of the lower note is utilized. In tuning M3rds, the 4th > partial of the upper note is utilized. In tuning double octaves, the 4th > partial of the lower note is utilized. In tuning single octaves, the 4th > partial of the lower note is utilized. Begins to sound like a repeating > record doesn't it. When one considers how many intervals are controlled > by the 4th partial, that makes it a very wise decision to use 4th partials. > It is well known that the first 3 partials are much more erratic (uneven in > a graph of their individual note inharmonicity curves), therefore, one > introduces more possible mismatches when using the 2nd and 3rd partials. > (I don't see how there can be any doubters among those who have an RCT > if they utilize their PianaLyzer). Also for this same reason, when one > tunes > with a SAT the M3rds come out very smoothly graduated. The 4ths come out > a little less smooth, but still very good. The 5ths will show more > variation. So, which would you rather have? You can't have it all. The > physics of the scale will not allow it unless you are tuning a piano which > was designed with smooth inharmonicity principally in mind. The Walter > piano and the original C-42 Conn (Later Janssen) pianos were the first two > designed this way. (I had a little something to do with that). Other more > recent piano designs have given at least a little more attention to that > factor in scale design. There are other things which are equally important, > so inharmonicity is not the only thing. > > Excuse me, I ramble and sometimes mumble. The point is that very good > compromises are being made daily using ETDs alone. Judgments are still left > up to the individual as to the amount of stretch that is preferred. Oh, > and I must add that the tuning lever skill of the technician is paramount. > We still > have many technicians who prefer equal 3rds and 10ths. That's OK. They just > have to stretch more in the 5th octave if they desire any pretense of good > balance in matching single double and triple octaves. I prefer to start with > a little more stretch in the center, it makes it a little easier to > accomplish the overall balance. > > If anyone has doubts about the ability to tune accurately with just the ETD > (SAT is my preference), just attend my 3 hour advanced tuning class in > Providence where I will demonstrate the basis for good aural tuning as well > as the basis for good Electronic tuning. You will also get a chance to see > and hear the Pure 5ths Temperament as it is spread over the entire piano. > Sure, it will stretch your credulity in the midrange, but when you hear > music played on it, I predict you will love it as many who have gone before > you have done. I am not even saying that that is the way to always tune, but > it is one way and is quite satisfying. > > Jim Coleman, Sr.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC