[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[Scott Helms, RPT]

Ed -

I hear things exactly the same way you describe, and interestingly enough,
I've used the same terminology you used ("musical" listening vs.
"analytical" listening). I see this as akin to listening to an orchestra
live; you can listen to the whole sound, or you can "zone in" on a
specific section or even sometimes a specific player. I've also noticed in
that situation that I tend to be more aurally aware of whatever section of
the orchestra I'm looking at - there's a visual connection for me. I hear
the totality of the sound better if I close my eyes. In thinking about
this phenomenon, it made me wonder if, for those people who are learning
to hear specific partials, it would be helpful to have some sort of visual
aid training program (maybe computer-based?) that shows the fundamental
and all its partials, and highlights where the coincident partials are
beating. There could be a whole ear training program designed with this
principle in mind. I taught undergraduate aural comrehension (ear
training) classes for years and was always trying to think of new ways to
help students hear things they struggled with, so I guess that gray matter
hasn't gone completely defunct yet!  :)   Would this be something worth
developing for beginning (and maybe all?) technicians as a learning tool?
-- 
Scott Helms, Registered Piano Technician
www.helmsmusic.net


> This thread is getting really good now: describing HOW we hear. This
> is crucial: I love that Ed calls listening to coincident partials
> "analytic;' that's what it feels like---a different part of my
> consciousness is matching partials than listening to the blend of
> partials that is the "whole-tone." I can do both, but it seems more
> thorough and "feels better" to me to listen to everything that's
> happening when I play two notes; I like I can serve the tuning, and
> the piano, better.
>
> I maintain an upright Kawai piano in the studio of a famous film
> composer that is tuned so that every string is one octave lower than
> normal (A440 is tuned to A220.) It's a huge challenge due to the
> massive inharmonicity with the wire at such low tension. None of the
> usual hearing rules apply. It's the purest experience of listening to
> the whole tone---watery and boinky as it is---to try to hear and
> achieve the most musical relationships between the notes. I realized
> yesterday that the way I tune is the only way you could possibly do
> this work. ETD? Forget it. the sucker would blow a circuit. Partial
> matching? Good luck; that way lies madness; there be dragons.
> Listening to the whole tone is the only way. To hear this piano in all
> its glory, listen to the opening minute of the soundtrack of "3:10 to
> Yuma," starring Russell Crowe. Spooky.
> DA
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2009, at 4:38 AM, William Monroe wrote:
>
>> Ed,
>>
>> Thank you for responding.  I had a suspicion that this is what was
>> happening.  Your experience pretty much mirrors mine.  Though at
>> this stage of my career, being able to focus on partials at a
>> multiple locations, or, particularly locations, is not
>> instantaneous, I certainly do that, as well as listen "musically".
>> I think when I first started I listened "musically" because it was
>> the most obvious for me, then with training, learned to isolate
>> partials.  I suppose over time I've come to think of musical
>> listening as undesireable, unfocused.  Perhaps it would serve me
>> well to revisit that idea.
>>
>> Do you think in your experience that MOST technicians can isolate
>> partials at different levels?  It would seem likely to me.  And it
>> also seems likely that we are all capable of listening "musically,"
>> too; we probably all first hear intervals that way.  For me, I think
>> it's harder to listen "musically."  My brain is just drawn to the
>> partials.  I'll fiddle around with it a bit.  Thanks again for
>> taking time to respond.
>>
>> William R. Monroe
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Ed Sutton <ed440 at mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>> William-
>>
>> Since I can do both, I'll explain:
>>
>> When I listen "musically" to a Major third, say F3-A3, the beating
>> sounds like its a vibrato happening at the pitch level of the
>> thirds; imagine, say, a violin playing the third with vibrato.
>>
>> When I listen "analytically," I let my hearing scan up the overtones
>> until I hear the co-incident partials where the beating is
>> occurring. Now I can recognize that the beating that I first heard
>> at the fundamental level is really happening at the 5/4 level and
>> that there is no beat at the fundamental level.
>>
>> As long as I can remember I have been able to listen to a tone and
>> consciously isolate many of the partials of the tone. I thought
>> everyone could do this, but in teaching I've learned that not
>> everyone can. I've also seen people who could not hear the partials
>> of a tone suddenly become able to hear them.
>>
>> When I talk of different modes of perception, I am referring to
>> these two different ways of hearing which I can usually effect at
>> will by just imagining how I want to hear.
>>
>> Ed Sutton
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: William Monroe
>> To: pianotech at ptg.org
>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:13 PM
>> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>> I was drawn to the idea that tuners need not listen to beats at
>> their specific pitch levels, since I am one the tuners who has never
>> heard coincident partials at a their actual pitches.
>>
>> Whole sound tuning is where it's at. It is not secret knowledge.
>> I'll be attempting to demonstrate next week at the Central-West
>> Regional Seminar in Wichita.
>>
>> Kent
>>
>> Kent,
>>
>> Can you explain this more clearly?  I know it's been (re)hashed many
>> times and, recently, but, where DO you hear the coincident partials
>> if not at their specific pitches?  I'm more than open to learning/
>> experiencing this technique, and I've no doubt standing behind you
>> (Virgil, DA, etc.) would be far more instructive, and I intend to do
>> that at GR if DA gets it going; but for now,   are you just
>> listening to "everything presented" at once?  Or is it something
>> different, specific to partials, but with a slightly different focus?
>>
>> William R. Monroe
>>
>
>