<HTML><HEAD></HEAD> <BODY> Andre, Your description sounds like what you might have= learned in Japan?   David Ilvedson       ----- Original message= ----------------------------------------> From: antares= <<A= href="mailto:antares@euronet.nl">antares@euronet.nl</A>> T= o: Pianotech <<A= href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>> Rec= eived: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:03:32 +0200 Subject: How We sense := "a total and complete ear opener". On 23-okt-04, at 4:53, Bill Ballard= wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Both David and Andre have described listening to= tuning doe a specific way, David with respect to the bottom end= of the piano and Andre, the number of partials audible during a= unison tuning. I'd like a clarification in each case, to make= sure I understand their experience (which BTW, I don't doubt for= a minute). At 8:09 AM -0700 10/20/04, David Andersen= wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Fascinating subject. Again, stretching the bass= MUSICALLY, until the perception of sound drops in your body= from the head and neck to the chest and stomach,and then, for= the last six notes on most pianos, a bit lower--- So the= fourth above is slowly rolling against the note being= tuned---will usually satisfy most= people. </BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting to have the perception= of an octave described in terms the location inside the body= where its perceived. Yogic. Californian. So what is it that's= moving that location downwards? The actual note of the keyboard= as you walk down towards the bottom, or the process of= stretching it wide from its single octave note= above? </BLOCKQUOTE> I think what David means here is= that he is capable of hearing with 'other senses'. This is= not so much Yogic or Californian (although our revered friend is= very much Californian (: >))), but is more a holistic= approach not everybody is able to understand nor value its= worth. (especially American Chevvy drivers have trouble with= this concept). (; grinnnn But it is true that we can perceive= certain 'values' not just with our regular senses, but also with= 'the other senses', senses all people possess, but have lost= thru leading a life which causes bluntness or a= density/narrowing of the so called "normal senses". Too= sharpen those senses, we can train ourselves by doing for= instance very simple exercises like : sitting very quiet on a= bench in for instance in a big American shopping mall, and doing= a seeing/looking exercise. I do this often myself. I sit still,= I am wide awake, and I try to see as much as I can see. I am not= just looking at pretty girls but I try to take in all there is= to see. And, dear colleagues, there is so very much= to see if only you 'open' your eyes. You see the texture of the= tiles, the different kind of shoes people are wearing, the shoes= that fit perfectly with the people who wear them, the profiles= of wooden frames around shops, the building structure(s), the= single colors of every thing, and especially the combined= colors of everything, the plants, the articles= displayed in the shop windows, the text and the different type= of lettering, the expressions on people's faces, man... I could= go on and on. Then there is another sense we mostly use= unconsciously : the smell. Same time, same place, this time= we focus on smells and odors. A male person strolls by who had= just put on his aftershave, a female person enters 'your space'= with an incredible perfume aura which lingers after this person= for sometimes a hundred yards (!), the smells of the shops,= their displayed articles, of all people, of animals, of= vehicles, of plants etc. The sense of smell is much stronger= than we think, and it may even trigger all kinds of= emotions. Then we come to the sense of hearing, which I think= is most developed in people. You're still sitting on that= bench in that shopping mall. You close your eyes, you= breath very deep and calmly for a minute. This in itself will= enhance your state of consciousness and relax your body, which= is necessary to "sense at all", and then you concentrate on what= you actually hear. What do we hear? We first of all hear= footsteps and voices. We hear a laugh, a cry, how many feet do= we actually hear going by (ever thought of that?), we hear= echo's, we hear the reverberation of the space we sit in, we can= try to define the bigness of that space, we can try to define= how far away the nearest wall is... in other words, we try to= "hear" Then, if we think we hear everything, we can try to= hear 'more'. Hearing more is a revelation. Generally speaking,= people with a musical talent may hear music in sounds, it is an= advanced way of listening and a more subtle way of perception.= In most big hotel , there are air vents in the bath rooms. If= you sit very quiet on the toilet, you may be able to hear sounds= from outside through the little air hole, you may hear very fine= high sounds of the air that is being blown through the air= channels... and there is so much to listen to in all of the= world. Now we come to 'listening' to a piano : if you= strike a key, you will hear that note. But did you hear the= impact of the hammer against the string? did you hear the impact= of the key hitting the bottom of the keybed? did you hear the= combined metal of strings, bolts and frame? Did you already find= out what 'the tone' is of the instrument? which tone sounds= best? Which register sounds best? Did you hear that the key= frame rattles? Did you hear that part the key frame is not in= contact with the keybed? Then we come to the strings: we= always listen for the moment when the beats of two strings come= together, but do we actually try to listen to the ''quality' of= that sound? What kind of sound is it really? Is it easy to hear= partials? Which partials are we able to distinguish? Do we ever= take the time to listen to as many partials as we can? And= then : when we strike a note, can we in some way feel the= vibrations of that sound? can we feel those vibes with our= fingers on the key (very important for voicing!)? Can we feel= the vibrations with our feet? You see, these things David= Andersen senses, are not funny, they are dead serious and they= are very important to 'sensitive' persons. If I lie down in my= bed, I always concentrate first on my breathing. I inhale= slowly, my belly stretches upward, I exhale, my belly goes down.= My state of consciousness slowly changes from all day= nervousness to the mental and physical relaxation required for a= healthy sleep. I then listen to my heart beat, uh-uhh, uh-uhh. I= feel the blood streaming through my veins, I sense the arteries= pulsing in my neck. Then I try to feel the heart beat in my= right big toe, and after only a few seconds, my right big toe is= already throbbing haha! I tell you these things to show= to you that much more is possible than we think, than we can= imagine even. This is not hocus pocus but the result of= training, consciously or unconsciously, of our senses.= The result of such a training is that we 1. make optimal use of= our brain capacity and senses, and 2. that our perception of= 'things' alters and that because of this, we live a life in a= state of being more aware. It is an enrichment. Many people have= lost this 'awareness'. They live their life in a dream state, in= a dumbing down. I am not doing any Yoga, I am not= religious in any way, I am not Californian. I am just trying to= learn and to become aware of especially things related to the= things I live with every day : piano's and their beautiful= sounds. <BLOCKQUOTE> At 11:49 PM +0200 10/18/04, antares wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Let me then tell you again about that lessons I once= had : my Japanese teacher once told me that my tuning that day= had come out very nice, but he told me that I used too much= force in striking the keys. So he ordered me to re-tune one= octave by keeping the middle strings intact and re-tune the left= and right string of each unison in that octave. So I did, and= he once more corrected me. saying that I was still banging too= hard. I then banged a little less, and finished the= octave. Then he asked me to listen to that very octave and= compare it with the neighboring octaves. I went out of my= mind! that one specific octave was so much more beautiful than= the others! </BLOCKQUOTE> That's the sound of the unisons= which was being listened to after having been redone quietly,= right? </BLOCKQUOTE> Right. <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>It has to do with the way we (unconsciously) listen= to overtones : you strike hard, you create an abundance of= higher partials, you strike less hard, you create a mix of lower= partilas and higher partials. </BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed the mix= of lower and higher partials is determined by how hard we= strike, but on a hard blow, the lower partials are no less= obvious (and as measured by a sophisticated spectrum analyzer,= no smaller in comparison to the higher partials) than on a soft= blow. What changes in the sound from soft blow to hard, is the= emergence of the higher partials which feed on the extra= strength of the blow. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I do not= entirely agree with you here. I have tested this partial= stuff myself with the aid of the spectrum analysis, built within= my VT. The VT works up to, I think, A5 with 8 partials, then= with 4. 2 and 1 partial. If you strike very hard, we see that= the emphasis lies indeed much stronger on the higher partials.= Where the lowest partials react less strongly, the highest= partials visibly react much more. But there is another= phenomenon at hand here : if you strike really hard, the tone= gets distorted and so does your hearing. With a really hard= bang, there is a tendency for the higher partials to overrule,= probably in combination with other physical factors I am not= familiar with. It may also be that our ears react in a much= different way then we think to a violent sound. <BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>The result is a coarse and wide sounding tone, very= rich in overtones and very long sounding. That tone is a= complimentary quality an experienced and musical tuner can= use. If a given tuning is not really perfect (and I am= convinced that at least 95% of all tunings in the world are not= 100% perfect) than we can make up for the hopefully small errors= by at least creating a very rich tone. </BLOCKQUOTE> This= may be true, but, being the aural tuner which I still am after= all of these years, I'm using the higher partials as a vernier= fine adjustment on the fundamental during unison tuning. In some= PTJ article it was mentioned that a "dead unison" is best done= by zero-beating the highest partial we can hear. If a 7th= partial (my favorite) beats at 1bps, I know the 1st is on a slow= roll one beat every 7 seconds. (And the 2d every 3.5 secs, and= so on.) If I slow the 7th beat rate down to 0.5bps, the period= of the 1st partial's beat rate would stretch to 14 sec., and the= slope of its rise and fall would be so mild as to be unusable in= zero-beating that 1st partial. Much easier to slow the 7th= partial beat rate from 1/2 bps to zero, rather than the 1st= partial from 1/14 bps to zero. So it's this fine tuning= knob that I would have to do without, by tuning with a soft= blow. Not that I bang my way through a tuning. But I would have= to be playing very quietly not to hear the 7th partial even up= into the 5th octave. So, Andre, a clarification: were the= unisons with the softer blow, done listening to individual= partials although no higher than the 4th, or were they done on= the basis of the "whole sound", ie, the wave envelope of the= entire sound regardless of what partials may be contributing= beat rates? </BLOCKQUOTE> The notes were retuned on the= basis of the "whole" sound. There was no need to really pick out= this or that partial. btw, I never really consciously= tune with the aid of partials. I just tune, I just use my basic= musical talent which defines my "ear/tone print". My musical= talent and my trained ears tell me exactly when the combination= of the two or three strings is at its most beautiful (according= to my frayed nerve endings hehe). I am convinced that our= eyes work the same : it is a matter of 1. the= technical/physical situation with your eyes i.e. are they= healthy, are they functioning well enough? 2. How do our= eyes and optical nerves perceive and especially 'translate' the= spectrum of light beams. So it must be that my green= resembles your green, but is probably fractionally= different. That's why I state that all tuners have a= different way of creating unisons. I am not talking here= about counting beats or creating a temperament etc. no, this is= purely related to the way we can perceive and process sound and= the combination of two or three sounds, coming from the= unisons. That is most fascinating stuff and tuners with under= developed 'ears' could highly benefit from a 'unison seminar' of= maybe 1 hour. As I told before : the best example I heard= of this was at the Yamaha Academy in Japan, where a number of= 'developed' students in my class (Concert course) had to do a= tuning test every day at 8 a.m. My instructor secretly= invited me to compare their unisons, and Bill... It was a= total and complete "ear opener". And then there was in= particular this one Japanese lady tuner who made the ultimate= tuning, by which I mean that she was able to tune every= note on the tuning curve. It was absolutely amazing, and she= performed this incredible work of precision every day. She was= almost like a tuning machine, and a very good one too Her= unisons however were of very very poor 'tonal' quality. The best= tuning maybe on Earth, but the ugliest CFIII-S I ever heard (and= it was a rather new one, with new hammers). btw... the same= applies to the quality of voicing. If one doesn't have the= "right" ear, it would be better to....... dadadada (fill in= yourself) (; >)) <BLOCKQUOTE> If the latter, then we are back again to the= discussion of whether a breathless unison is a dead tone. If the= former, it's simply a matter of whether a breathless unison can= be efficiently achieved, listening to and working with the 1st 4= partials only. Thanks for the clarification, guys. I only= "partially hear" you. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well Bill, I think= I could describe this unison stuff best by comparing a very rich= and coarse sounding unison with a train track of which the rails= lie very wide. The louder you strike, the smaller the gauge= of the tracks. That's I think a good comparison. The best= thing of course is to try this out for yourself. Most people do= not believe this story and as I told here before I once told a= famous pianist about it and he said "rubbish" don't tell me BS= stories (all this in a blunt way, so much for famous pianists).= I remained calm and polite and offered to prove it. After I had= tuned a few unisons with tremendous blows, he had to admit that= those few notes sounded very different indeed. For punishment, I= should have tuned his battered Steinway in my most favorite= tuning, called Freud 2, where all fourths are tuned into pure= fifths. This is btw a tuning, which, if not performed with vast= experience and total dedication, will drive you completely nuts= and bonkers, the tech usually ending up in a very tight straight= jacket, hence the name : Freud nr 2) There is also another one I= like very much called Jung, number 7, but that is for advanced= nuts..... Bill, I hope that "my partials" are by now a= very open book to you... (; <BLOCKQUOTE> </BLOCKQUOTE> friendly= greetings from Andr� Oorebeek "where Music= is, no harm can be" </BODY></HTML>