Tuning Testing Standards

[Michael Jorgensen]

Hi Jim,
     Your experiment has much bearing on the merits/demerits of HT.  If
piano tuners who ought to be most aware of beat speeds do not hear or
notice something funny in the tuning then there must be something else
at play here.  My hypothesis is that tuners use so much stretch that
fast 10ths, 17ths, have become accepted as normal and consequently not
noticed as errors.  Better sounds from other thirds are not noticed
because humans only zero in on errors not natural sounding
improvements.  
    What stretch level was used for the ET?  Was it the same for the WT
piano?  Were both tuned with an ETD by the same tuner?  In aural terms,
how fast were the relative speeds of the 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths?  How
does this compare with what the Steinway tuners do?  If OTS 4 on the RCT
is typical of most tuners, doesn't that make some 17ths equal to some of
the faster well tempered thirds?
The reasons I have heard for high stretch are;
1. To make the piano more brilliant
       (If this is true, it is sad to ruin the tuning in a feeble 
      attempt to overcome a weak dull treble by creating beats) 
2. The pianists like it that way;
      (If this is true, it is a point for HT because it says that
      pianists miss the high tension sounds of fast 3rds, 10ths, and 
     17ths which means they should be using HTs inorder to gain these
     without much stretch i.e with clear octaves and gaining  smooth 
     3rds where the composers intended.)
3. The concert tuners are all deaf;
     (I hope this isn't true, but Yat Lam once told me that as hearing 
    loss developes with age so does the tendency to tune sharper.  The 
     ear grows less sensitive over minor clarity problems.  Most concert
    tuners are old by the time they acheive that status and the pianists
     are conditioned to that sound.  In my 20s I know I always had a 
     tendency to tune flat, i.e. had to work to get the 10ths and 17ths
     up to equal speed with the thirds.)
4.  To make cleaner 12ths and 19ths.  This is a plus for higher stretch.
  
Once in a while I run into a musician who objects to stretch beyond
equal 3rds, 10ths and 17ths.  I too question the musical merits of all
that stretch.

What is the real reason for all this stretch as you see it?

-Mike Jorgensen RPT




    Jim Coleman, Sr. wrote:
> 
> I thought there may be some who would be interested in the latest Tuneoff.
> 
 I presented two identical pianos
> which had just been tuned in different temperaments. One was just a standard
> SAT FAC tuning which incidentally is a very good tuning on a Yamaha C3. The
> other tuning was the Moore 18th Century Well Temperament which had some
> notes tuned 2.5 and 3.0 cents off from equal temperament.
> 
> After playing identical selections on the two pianos, I asked the class
> which piano they thought was the one with the "funny" tuning (actually, I
> used the words Moore Well tempered tuning). In the Friday class, the voting
> was fairly even. 54% thought the FAC tuning was the Well Tempered Tuning and
> only 46% guessed correctly. In the Sunday afternoon class, 80% thought that
> the FAC Tuning was the Well Tempered Tuning. I next asked which piano they
> liked best as far as tuning was concerned. It was almost unanimously decided
> in favor of the Well Tempered Tuning.
>