Hi David and thanks for your reply.
That begs the old question...what "is"..."is"? What is perfect...what is resolute...what is absolute...what is relative?
Indeed there are many pitch variations...i.e...A 440...A441...A439...etc. But...being able to tell the pitch of the note...is that perfect...or something else? Just the tone...or sound...not the absolute frequency.
I get your point and perhaps all of us here could fill in the blank with our own interpretation of perfect...but thought I'd throw that in anyway.
And the "beat" goes on...literally.
Thanks again for your thoughts David.
Marc P. Mailhot
Marco Polo Music
Westbrook, ME USA
The Love You Take is Equal to the Love You Make...
The Beatles/Abbey Road (The End)...1969
--- On Tue, 3/17/09, pianotech-request at ptg.org <pianotech-request at ptg.org> wrote:
From: pianotech-request at ptg.org <pianotech-request at ptg.org>
Subject: pianotech Digest, Vol 5, Issue 229
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Date: Tuesday, March 17, 2009, 1:04 PM
Send pianotech mailing list submissions to
pianotech at ptg.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech_ptg.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
pianotech-request at ptg.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
pianotech-owner at ptg.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of pianotech digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Tunic software (Jeff Deutschle)
2. Re: high leverage action (Gene Nelson)
3. Re: capstain/wippen angle, was: key position at rest
(Ron Nossaman)
4. Re: Perfect Pitch and Temperaments (david at piano.plus.com)
5. Re: high leverage action (Gene Nelson)
6. Re: Tunic software (David Ilvedson)
7. Re: Tunic software (Bernhard Stopper)
8. capstain/wippen angle, was: key position at rest (V T)
9. capstain/wippen angle, was: key position at rest (V T)
10. Re: Some Observations & Questions Regarding Partials
&Inharmonicity (Tyler Ferrari)
Kent:
Could you say about how many cents narrow around B6? Any difference in
the bass? Again about how many cents around C1? How do the
mid-sections compare?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Kent Swafford <kswafford at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have said that I believe a PureTuner tuning could serve well as a master
> tuning, with the exception of the high treble, for which the exam calls
for
> clean single octaves. I have said that as a practical matter, master
tunings
> tend to be somewhat more narrow than PureTuner tunings.
> Kent Swafford
>
--
Regards,
Jeff Deutschle
Please address replies to the List. Do not E-mail me privately. Thank You.
>
> Is this the way the action was originally configured ?
I believe that I am the first person to do major work on this piano
and there is no evidence that I can observe that would suggest
that the stack had been moved. Gene
Look at a "standard" center rail punching setup. As you cycle the key
through it's normal (not exaggerated) range of motion, you'll see the
fulcrum point shift from the rear of the punching to the center to the front,
through a range of about 10mm. Thicker punchings are more compressible, and the
effective fulcrum points moves through a narrower range. The key, meanwhile
moves visibly down, then up the pin during the stroke.
In an accelerated action, the fulcrum point looks to me to be moving no more
than about a millimeter or so on the half round. Making the hole off center
wouldn't change that a bit, but would increase movement of the key balance
hole up and down the pin.
The key ratio in an accelerated action remains more constant through the range
of key travel than that in a standard setup so, if anything, the half round
fulcrum decelerates the system.
Ron N
Marc, your anecdote is certainly interesting. But we are still left with
the problem of no definition of terms, when people talk about "perfect
pitch". It would be helpful, I think, if you could complete the following
sentence:
"My definition of perfect pitch is the ability to.............."
Best,
David.
#yiv891410328 BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv891410328 DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv891410328 UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv891410328 OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv891410328 LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
>With the whippen rail aligned so that the whippen flange centers
>are not on a parallel line to the capstans ?
Whenever I encounter this misalignment (which is quite often),
I relocate the stack such that the whippen ratio is the same
across the compass.
**** Great, more surgery - I love it.
As far as locating the whippen heel, if the location you desire
does not coincide with the default hole, cut off the dowel and
place the heel where you wish. First glue on to the ends of
each section (measure each from the front) and glue on
the rest by aligning with a straightedge, much like hanging hammers.
**** Slaps head - dowell is not a permanent structure - thanks for that.
Gene
Actually, the dowel usually just pulls out with these nifty pliers:
http://tinyurl.com/cc9j4z
As Roger Jolly says, they're great for damper work.--
Regards,
Jon PagePhil,
A side by side comparison of the Tunic to your SATIII? Whatever it is... i.e.
tune with the Tunic then take readings with your other ETD. Like Jeff and
others I would be interested in what differences you find, if any...
David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA 94044
----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Phil Bondi" <phil at philbondi.com>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Received: 3/17/2009 7:17:06 AM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Tunic software
>Jeff, I have only compared it to what my older ETD says is in tune..not
>a RPT Master tuning. I have not had the opportunity. Maybe this year in
>Grand Rapids..? Are you involved with the Tuning Tests in Grand Rapids?
>If so, I'll be there with Tunic to test if you like.
>-Phil
The differences are always different from instrument to instrument as the
software handles nonlinearity atutomatically.
Bernhard Stopper
Am 17.03.2009 um 16:57 schrieb David Ilvedson:
> Phil,
>
> A side by side comparison of the Tunic to your SATIII? Whatever it is...
i.e. tune with the Tunic then take readings with your other ETD. Like Jeff and
others I would be interested in what differences you find, if any...
>
> David Ilvedson, RPT
> Pacifica, CA 94044
>
> ----- Original message ----------------------------------------
> From: "Phil Bondi" <phil at philbondi.com>
> To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
> Received: 3/17/2009 7:17:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Tunic software
>
>
>> Jeff, I have only compared it to what my older ETD says is in
tune..not
>> a RPT Master tuning. I have not had the opportunity. Maybe this year
in
>> Grand Rapids..? Are you involved with the Tuning Tests in Grand
Rapids?
>> If so, I'll be there with Tunic to test if you like.
>
>> -Phil
>
Hello Frank,
OK, that makes perfect sense!
Vladan
> I have a set of replacement balance fulcrums which are
> drill on center. If memory serves, I seem to recall some
> that were off center on the bottom, but not on top. The
> hole was drilled at an angle to match the angle of the
> balance pin, with the surface contacting the key being
> centered. I remember having to be careful to not rotate the
> fulcrum 180 degrees so the base does not lie flat on the
> balance rail. I believe they also marked the front edge to
> make it more obvious if they are reverse. It may be that
> they changed this at some point, since the replacement
> fulcrums do not have this angle.
>
> Frank Emerson
You are correct.
Vladan
>The key ratio in an accelerated action remains more constant
>through the range of key travel than that in a standard setup
>so, if anything, the half round fulcrum decelerates the system.
>Ron N
#yiv676436172 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv676436172 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
Ed,
I can imagine that our perception of sound is something that is not easily describable. As well, when I hear a 'fundamental', I'm sure it's a summation of multiple different things occurring in the string. My brain is what allows me to separate what is occuring in coincidence.
The first resource that really got me thinking about this was a simple definition of inharmonicity that a piano tuner gave me. That's when I started to pay more attention to partials and the effect they have on my perception of tone quality.
Up until this point, I have not been using any resources (I just received Reblitz's book in the mail yesterday though). I bought a few tools from pianophile that allow me to tune and to do some basic regulation. I think it's my musical intuition that has lead me this far. I just bought the tools, sat down with some software and trusted the software completely (at the beginning), with the exception of tuning unisons by ear.
Over the last few months, I've learned that there's a lot more to it that simply controlling the tuning based on some numerical or arbitrary value that a piece of software has outlined. It's a good starting point, and probably will generate tunings that are acceptable for the general public, but I'm really hunting for something else. Every time I sit down and tune my piano, I am coming up with a tuning that is sufficiently better than the one that preceded it. This is the cyclic learning process I've been a part of over the last few months, and I suppose I am beginning to gain some confidence in my work.
I had what our city consideres a 'highly skilled tuner' come to my place today, and I asked him to assess my tuning and my perception of what was going on. He told me that my tuning is considerably better than many of the local tuners. I can attribute this to the sheer number of hours I spend tweaking in, but it's still difficult for me to believe that it is in fact 'that' much better than a professional with 10 years of experience. He explained to me the most fundamental thing about piano tuning: the quality of the tuning is based on how the 'customer' or 'musician' feels about it. Whether or not 'I' think it is good, if they dislike it, then the tuning is not satisfying them, and in effect, the tuning is not as 'quality'.
I have to resort to being humble because I feel like I really know nothing yet, but I suppose that I am in fact a 'natural'. I would just like to have a ridiculously in-depth chat with a tuning guru about the art that is tuning. That would be extremely satisfying, but I think I may be out of luck in my city.
I'm not a member of PTG currently, but I think that it would be worthwhile for me to join as it appears there is a lot of value in the knowledge that floats around, especially on this mailing list.
Thanks for your feedback. It is much appreciated.
-Tyler
From: ed440 at mindspring.com
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:05:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Some Observations & Questions Regarding Partials &Inharmonicity
#yiv676436172 .ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P
{padding-right:0px;padding-left:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-top:0px;}
#yiv676436172 .ExternalClass BODY.EC_hmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
Tyler-
Everything you've written below seems very perceptive and generally correct. There is no clear concensus about "fundamental beats." There are several possible explanations. You will eventually discover, for example, that the lower bass strings have almost no energy at the fundamental. The "sound" we hear may be a Fourier transform of higher partials, or it may be a neurological interpretation of complex information. (Obviously everything we hear is a "neurological interpretation of complex information." The neurological discoveries of the last 20 years are rapidly becoming common knowledge, and they will change our way of understanding everything, including tuning pianos.)
You seem to be a "natural" at this. Your understanding and perception exceed many people who have been at it (generally with the help of an ETD) for a long time. What resources are you using to learn?
I don't think you need to worry about "whole tone" listening or tuning. It's obvious you are hearing plenty of ways, and also thinking plenty of ways. "Whole tone" hearing is not clearly defined, and much of what we are writing about it is theoretical speculation. I recently heard a tuning by someone with "partial"hearing, and it is clear by what you write that you aren't stuck in "partial" hearing.
Are you a new member of PTG? Through PTG you would gain access to a lot of material, and a lot of colleagues.
Ed Sutton
----- Original Message -----
From: Tyler Ferrari
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:24 AM
Subject: [pianotech] Some Observations & Questions Regarding Partials &Inharmonicity
#yiv676436172 .ExternalClass p.EC_MsoNormal, #yiv676436172 .ExternalClass li.EC_MsoNormal, #yiv676436172 .ExternalClass div.EC_MsoNormal
{margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';}
_filtered #yiv676436172 {}
#yiv676436172 .ExternalClass div.EC_Section1
{}
I have a few questions and observations I wanted to post, and hope to hear some replies.
If a string is said to have a lot of inharmonicity, does that mean that all of its partials are always sharp? As the partial being listened to moves further away from the fundamental, does it get progressively and proportionately sharper (as if it were based on a simple multiplication of constant), or does it get 'exponentially' sharper depending on how much inharmonicity the string has? I'm finding when listening to certain strings that certain partials are sharper than others (in a single string). The octave partial in a single string may be quite close, but the 10ths (or 17ths) (for example) may be quite sharp. Am I hearing things, or can one partial be quite sharp compared to another?
I don't quite know how to word that question, so if someone thinks they might have an answer if I can better clarify it, let me know.
Next,
It appears that most notes lower than C4 have partials that are more noticeable than others, as well as multiple audible partials. How does one choose where to split the difference, and choose which partial they are going to leave flat, or sharp? This becomes much more of an art when compared to the simple task of eliminating beat rates in the fundamental. Obtaining certain beat rates when listening to the fundamentals appears to be child's play compared to the task of choosing which partial to use as the reference for the quality of the unison, as well as the quality of an interval being played. Listening to the beat rate between fundamentals when playing an interval (at least in my case) does not provide me with the best sound. I usually need to add a slight beat to the interval to remove the issues with the partials that appear to be beating a rate much greater than the fundamental.
It appears that at the cost of introducing a small beat rate into the fundamental, I can reduce the beat rate of the partials by a much larger amount. That seems like an advantageous trade-off. I don't believe that it is a proportional reduction. If I introduce (for example) .5 BPS into an octave, I may in fact reduce a particular partial's beat rate by 3-5 BPS. I'm certain that I'm hearing this, and it really makes a world of a difference when trying to objectively view the 'quality' of an interval.
I've been reading the discussions and information that people have been posting regarding 'whole note' or 'whole tone' listening, or tuning. There's a lot of information and reference to information that I don't understand, but here is what I have to say about that.
This may be a bold statement, but this is how it appears to me:
If strings have inharmonicity, they cannot be properly tuned by listening to beat rates of fundamental tones alone. Maybe I'm totally dropping the ball on this one, but do some tuners only focus on the fundamental when tuning an interval or unison? If so, that REALLY does not seem right to me. In my case, the quality of the note is based on the fundamental beat rate as well as partial beat rates, and often sacrificing one or the other to obtain the best possible quality of tone.
Eventually, I will learn the special circumstances with my piano well enough to be able to know how I want to tune certain unisons and intervals to compensate for the issues with the partials. That's just practice.
But, I cannot imagine getting the point when I could walk into a customer's house, hear their piano for the first time and immediately have a good sense of how I need to tune the piano to best suit its particular situation regarding partial inharmonicity. A person who is doing that, is someone who I would consider a master-tuner. Is that the point when you become a Jedi Master Guru tuner, and you can simply tune a piano by looking at it? haha
Thanks for reading my rant/journal on my findings and observations. I'm still a newbie, but I think I'm really getting the hang of things. I appreciate the criticism and support I'll receive from this message.
-Tyler
Communicate, update and plan on Windows Live Messenger. Get started today.
Communicate, update and plan on Windows Live Messenger. Get started today. _______________________________________________
pianotech mailing list
pianotech at ptg.org
http://ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech_ptg.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090317/e806d982/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC