Feedback appreciated

[David Nereson]

David Andersen wrote:

> Hi, folks----I got a beautiful letter from Virgil Smith today about my 
> tuning article in this month’s Journal; I’m so happy he liked it, and 
> it gave me a thrill to be acknowledged by him.
>
> What did you guys think of it? I’d love some feedback, praise, scorn, 
> whatever.......
>
> David Andersen 

You asked for it:
"Cracking" a unison sounds to me like nothing different from tuning a 
truly beatless unison, which we all strive for anyhow, but maybe don't 
actually accomplish on each and every tuning, except perhaps on an 
extra-special "concert tuning" on which we spend two or more hours.
Under "A Few Helpful Hints," you say the "true beat" doesn't appear for 
3-5 seconds after the two notes are played, especially in the fourths. 
But two paragraphs hence, you say the fourths all beat at 1.5 - 2.5 bps! 
If they're beating that fast, how can it take 3 - 5 seconds for the 
("true," whatever that is) beat to appear? In the same paragraph, you 
say A3-D4 and C4-F4 might even beat faster than we think would be right. 
What's "right"? I assume we're tuning equal temperament, in which case 
fourths in the temperament area beat at about 1 bps. 2.5 bps for a 
fourth would be quite noticeable, I would think. But with all three 
strings open (which, in the end, when doing a final check, is how we 
would listen to the piano anyhow), you say the beats slow down a bit. I 
don't agree that having the unisons tuned will slow down the beat of the 
interval! Do they actually slow down or just seem to?
The terms you use to describe widths of intervals, such as: swellingly 
beatless, almost beatless, very slightly narrowed, a tiny bit, a frog 
hair, slightly, a hair, a little, ever-so-slightly more, quite a bit 
more, slow roll, a bit, slower than, just a bit, super fast, and 
slightly narrow, are all too subjective to actually use in precisely 
setting a temperament, in my opinion. Without defining what these means 
in terms of beats per second, temperaments tuned with these guidelines 
by several different tuners probably would all come out differently.
Then in the third-to-last paragraph, you say, "If all the fourths on the 
piano are beating the same slow roll, then the stretch will be exactly 
on the money out to the extremes." I really don't believe this is true, 
and certainly not for all pianos. The beat speeds of fourths and most 
other intervals increase slightly as one ascends the scale in a piano 
tuned to equal temperament. And is there really such a thing as the 
stretch being "exactly on the money"? Different degrees of inharmonicity 
in different pianos require different amounts of stretch.
As someone else replied, :
Do you really think this is equal temperament? <g> "I have found that 
A3-D4 and C4-F4 beat slightly faster." If that's so, how can the thirds 
and sixths progress evenly? A jocular quibble of little consequence.
Of more than a little consequence, in my opinion.
Also, I know that the "Virgil Smith phenomenon" has been demonstrated, 
or supposedly "proven" with an ETD, but in my opinion, it is so small 
that's it's negligible. Maybe one in a hundred pianists, if that, would 
even detect it. If you're regularly tuning for the world's most 
demanding concert artists, it may be something to consider. But for the 
spinets, consoles, and 5-foot grands those of us "in the trenches" deal 
with every day, and which almost all require a pitch raise because they 
get tuned only every 4 to 7 years, nah! I'm sorry. It's just not worth 
all the extra time "cracking" unisons when they're going to drift out of 
tune by next week anyhow, because of the pitch raise.
But I'll try the temperament sequence, and maybe reserve the technique 
for the next time I tune in Carnegie Hall or Lincoln Center.
Of more than a little consequence, in my opinion.
As an aside, though I respect Virgil Smith, his accomplishments, and 
long-time career, tuning for top clients, and acknowledge that in his 
mind, he knows what he's talking about, I have yet to see an article 
that explains scientifically what is actually happening with the 
partials and beats in what he calls the "natural beat" (of all the 
partials sounding simultaneously, as opposed to listening to just two 
coincident partials). I have yet to hear that "natural beat." I can play 
an interval, with or without unisons tuned, and hear the various 
beatings of various coincident partials, and usually one is strongest, 
but if that's what he means, he should say so. If anybody else knows 
what the so-called "natural beat" is in scientific terms, i.e, exactly 
what is being listened to, what its beat speed is, etc., or if its an 
entirely different phenomenon that only a select few can hear, why don't 
they write an article and clue the rest of us, or at least me, in?

--David Nereson, RPT