Weber notching, etc...

[Jim Coleman, Sr.]

HI Wim:

I'm 74 this month. Yes, it is harder to hear the high treble. Fortunately,
I have a SAT I, SAT II, a SAT III, TuneLab, and RCT; plus my old original
StroboConn (the twelve window job).

However, here is a tip to others who are beginning to have difficulty
hearing the high treble. Plucking the strings with fingernails can give
a brighter sound without the woody sound of the hammer. Unfortunately,
you can leave the note like this because you need to hammer the string
to get it to settle and become stabilized, so tune a little high, beat
it down to a stable position and then pluck again to see if it still
sounds right.

I do prefer the treble stretched higher, not because of hearing loss,
but because of the matching 8th partials (three octave tests). In order
to get a good match here, it will be necessary to stretch the temperament
as much as possible, stretch the 5th octave just less than 1 bps, and
stretch the double octaves in octave 6 to about 2 bps. Setting the 
temperament with pure 5ths helps to accomplish all of this and the
12ths and 19ths stay in good clarity also.

If any of you have been in one of my tuning classes, you have seen me
demonstrate the difference between our melodic sense of hearing and our
harmonic sense of hearing. Melodic sense would require one to tune even
sharper than the 8:1 triple octave match. For me, this would be too
far out, but in many classes I have proved that this is what the melodic
sense of hearing demands by a majority vote of the entire class. Here are 
some numbers for comparison:  

Melodic comparisons of C4 and C7 = approx. 41 to 45 cents at C7
Harmonic comparisons             = approx. 15 to 18 cents at C7
Average tunings by technicians   = approx. 11 to 13 cents at C7

When I was a novice tuner, I tried to tune octaves as pure 2:1 type. As
I learned more, I began stretching the temperament to pure 4:2 type (M3rd-
M10 equality). With even more experience I began stretching the 4-2 type
by 1/2 bps. This is almost identical to stretching the octaves as 6-3
types (m3rd-M6 equality).

Even after learning to put a little stretch in the temperament octave, I
would still tune the temperament to pure 2:1 octaves when trying to match
the piano with an organ in a church. I later realized that this was dumb
because it made the piano treble sound too flat when played alone (this
was when I was much younger and could hear better). The upper partials
of the inharmonic temperament range strings were screaming for more stretch.
At the present time when tuning with an organ, I do an average amount of
stretch which is a compromise in what the piano demands and what the organ
demands. If you want to hear something really weird, try tuning a piano
note for note with an organ. The piano will sound terrible but it will be
in unison with the organ (assuming that the organ was tuned with pure
octaves.).

That's all I have to say about that (Tom Hanks).

Jim Coleman, Sr.



On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 Wimblees@AOL.COM wrote:

> In a message dated 12/16/99 2:46:41 PM !!!First Boot!!!, 
> drwoodwind@hotmail.com writes:
> 
> << With the recent discussion of different stretch preferences,
>  I wondered if anyone has done any study comparing... (oooo,
>  treading lightly now, flamesuit ready) age/hearing quality with stretch 
>  preferences.  During my career, I've followed up on some 'older'(that could 
>  be me soon!) tuners that stretch the bejeebers
>  out of the top.  It's about a step too high to my liking.
>  
>  Could hearing loss make people prefer pure 5ths, and super stretch? >>
> 
> 
> To say the upper octaves were "stretched" is a polite way of saying the tuner 
> just could't hear those upper notes. When my dad reached about 75, he 
> couldn't hear anything above C7. I played his piano after he tuned it, and 
> told him he needed to hang it up, that he couldn't hear any more. That isn't 
> to say all tuners that reach 75 are done for. But as one gets older, its the 
> upper partials that go first.
> 
> Willem 
>