Hi Don, Thanks for your thoughtful descriptions and for stepping forward with your views. Doug Hershberger,RPT Don Mannino wrote: > > Jim, > > Well, I'll hesitatingly take my foot out of my mouth long enough to say > something and probably fit that foot right back again. Jim asked to find > out what the "experts" are doing, but I'll answer anyway, Jim. Real > experts are working too hard at it to write E-mail much <g> > > I've been doing quite a bit of thinking and non-scientific testing of > tuning methods and tuning sounds. Of those few musicians outside of > Kawai whom I tune for, I have asked them the questions "Do you hear > differences in tone quality from one tuner to the next" and "How would > you characterize this tuning." (meaning the one I just did) > > This is a little bit of a loaded question, as the musician tends to want > to give a favorable review with me right in front of them, but the > general trend of the answers is that this tuning is "warm and sweet." > I'm not sure I know what that means exactly, but I have a few ideas > based on recent comparisons with stored electronic tunings from other > technicians which I have looked at and tried out a little. > > Jim - you have an idea how I tune (at least how I tune under duress!) > from the PTG convention last year (to the list - I pre-tuned the 4 RX-5 > pianos before Jim and Virgil got to them for the tune-off) Virgil's > comments were that my tuning was very similar to his, which I took as a > complement although I certainly don't think I tune in he same way he > does. So Jim, what was your take on my tunings? > > The Kawai pianos I tune most of the time are well suited to my tuning > style, I think, because they have relatively low inharmonicity and work > well with clean sounding octaves and slightly slow beating temperament > intervals. However, some of my private clients have Steinway and Mason & > Hamlin pianos and they still feel my tunings are warm and sweet > sounding. I haven't taken the time to analyze my tunings on those > pianos, because I am there to provide service and can't spend time on my > own pursuits. > > My conclusion is probably totally erroneous, so please comment. But here > is my tentative take on what makes some tunings sound sweet and others > more bright, or perhaps "aggressive" is a good term: > - 3rd beat rates somewhat slow in the temperament section, > - 5ths even but not necessarily all that slow. > - Octaves between 2:1 and 4:2 in the middle of the piano. > - Treble octaves tuned as clean as possible between 2:1 and 4:1 double > octaves > - High treble tuned 2:1 - I find this is extremely rare in other tuners, > and I haven't decided why exactly. It seems most tune this area using a > sense of pitch as much as anything, but I can't get a handle on being > consistent using this method. > - Low bass clean (somewhere between 4:2 and 6:3 octaves), but wowing > wide conservatively in the lowest octave, with the wow being with the > loudest beat - not to a specific type of octave. > > My gut feeling is that the treble cleanness is beneficial to the sustain > of the notes, giving the sweetness to the tone. I don't have time to > think up and carry out a proper test of this, though. Maybe some day. > > BTW, I always strive for the cleanest unisons possible, and I am a hard > beater of the keys with frequent test blows, but I tune on consistent mf > - f(forte) playing usually. I also much prefer the sound of the tuning > when tuned with full muting of the piano with temperament strips and the > rear duplex muted off. I find I can really hear all the beats best this > way, and I know what I am doing. > > When I tune with an ETD, my tuning definitely measures as more accurate > and consistent note to note, but it doesn't sound better because of > this, to my ear anyway. This is even when I have set the EDT to match > my octave stretch preferences - the end result still sounds different > from the aural tuning. I have experimented a little with customizing > the Reyburn Cybertuner's tunings to match my own as closely as possible, > and so far I am still not satisfied - I need to tune many more pianos > with it to be able to say for sure if this can truly create an "Aural" > tuning, as I'd like it to. > > I suspect that the small unevenness of the aural tuning one can measure > is demonstrating that the ear is adjusting to the unevenness of the > piano. There is also undeniably a larger margin of error in the ear > tunings, but the results seem to fit the sound of the piano, rather than > the calculation of what the piano scale should sound like. > > Let me restate something, though. The differences between my own tunings > (aural or EDT) are miniscule, are only audible to me and some pianists > (and probably some other technicians, though technicians tend to listen > differently than musicians), and probably don't matter a lick in the > real world of banging in pitch raises and tunings on average pianos. > Even the audibility of the "Sweetness factor" may not stand up to a > careful double-blind listening test. As you have discovered, Jim, such > tests are extremely difficult to carry out with pianos, so we will > probably have to continue with anecdotal evidence. > > I've probably said too much, and now everyone will flame me. > > Don Mannino > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jim Coleman, Sr. [SMTP:pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:42 AM > > To: pianotech@ptg.org > > Subject: Sweet Sound > > > > To the entire list: > > > > During the aural/visual tuning discussions, we saw the term sweet > > sound > > as a description of fine aural tuning. Could we have some more comment > > on what makes the aural tuning have its distinctive character? Such > > things > > as how you prove the octaves, double octaves, tolerance of interval > > progression, cleanliness of unisons (there was some discussion about > > having > > not such antiseptic type unisons) and any other specifics which would > > be > > of interest. I'm not setting anyone up for criticism, but rather to > > get > > some specifics to be able to better teach aural tuning. I actually > > teach > > aural tuning more than I do visual tuning (strange as that may seem to > > > > some, since I am an AccuTuner dealer). If I can figure out what the > > real > > experts are really doing, I might become a better all around aural > > tuner > > and hence be able to teach others also. > > > > Jim Coleman, Sr. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Part 1.2 Type: application/ms-tnef > Encoding: base64
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC