on 2/24/01 9:31 AM, John Baird at jbaird@fgi.net wrote: > Thanks Fred and others, > > I have been stretching a lot more since your responses started coming in. > > I did find a few thoughts from Jim Coleman, Sr. in an article called CHASING > THE WOLF, Thoughts Towards a New Perspective > on Octave Stretching" in the June 1996 PTJ... > > "Let’s digress for just a moment to add one more item to the > mix. In many classes at Seminars and Institutes, a demonstration > has been made between the melodic sense of hearing and the > harmonic sense of hearing. The demo usually went something > like this: > The note C3 was played and everyone was encouraged to > listen carefully and remember that sound. Then C7 would be > played and tuned until there was a 70 percent to 80 percent > agreement that the pitch was correct. Then with the use of an > electronic measuring device, the note would be found to be 25 to > 50 cents sharp. Now this is much sharper than anyone known to > the writer would even dare to tune. It is even much higher than the > 16th partial of C3 would require on many pianos. This demonstra- > tion shows that the subjective judgments made using the melodic > (one note followed by another) sense of hearing requires sharper > tuning than does the harmonic sense (one or more notes played > together). > Now, there is no way that the melodic sense of hearing is going > to be completely satisfied in piano octave tuning in the treble. > However, demonstrations made recently show that much greater > sharpening of the treble can be tolerated harmonically than was > previously thought possible. With the advent of the new FAC > stretch tuning on the Accu-tuner, technicians are becoming > accustomed to hearing pure 4-1 type double octaves to the top end > of the piano. The top octave of a pure 4-1 double octave is a pure unstretched 2-1 octave which contributes little to stretching anywhere in the scale. At a recent convention, a concert was heard where > the top C8 was tuned over 50 cents sharp, with proper gradations > below supporting it. It sounded great. This writer has suspected > that in growing older perhaps his hearing may be the problem, so > younger ears have been employed in some of the tests, yielding the > same conclusion that sharper tuning does sound better." > > Thanks again, > > John Baird > > Fred Sturm wrote: > >> John Baird wrote: >>> >>> Alternate Subject Line: Outrageously stretched treble sounds great >>> >>> RE: The phenomenon where a normally, RPT-exam-passing, stretched treble >>> sounds flat, especially when playing a slow arpeggio up to the top >>> octave, but an extremely stretched treble sounds very good. The single >>> octaves, 10ths & 17ths don't pass an inspection by tuners, but the piano >>> does sound great when it is played. >>> >>> I believe this has been discussed before--does anyone remember when or >>> what the subject line was? >>> >> There was an article in the PTJ some years ago entitled (I think) >> "Picasso Tuning" and the thread may have had that title. I remember a >> discussion along these lines on Pianotech about four years ago. Jim >> Coleman contributed quite a bit, including his "pure 5ths" temperament, >> which he later turned into PTJ articles. >> I personally tune a triple octave stretch on concert grands and any >> other piano whose inharmonicity allows (a judgment call, and the variety >> is quite broad). I find this stretch, which produces rather fast beating >> "single" (2:1) octaves, and 3rd/10th, 10th/17th and 3rd/17th tests with >> pretty wide differences in beat rates in some parts of the scale (again, >> varies tremendously depending on inharmonicity curve) creates a more >> brilliant and generally pleasing sound overall. Pure double octave >> stretch, which is very reliably produced by SAT FAC tunings, is quite >> nice and clean, but not as "interesting" and "vibrant." But frankly, I >> don't think triple octave stretching is very "radical" in sound. None >> of the octaves or double octaves sound bad unless you focus the ear on >> listening for beats. I suspect wider than triple octave could be quite >> acceptable in many circumstances. >> Trouble is, it seems most discussion focuses on anecdotal evidence, >> with no quantification to back it up. It would be interesting to do a >> series of tuning comparisons somewhat like what Jim Coleman and Virgil >> Smith did a couple years back, varying tunings by perceptible and >> measurable stretch constants consistently applied. >> Fred Sturm >> University of New Mexico > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC