---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Hi, Ed, Fred & All I just read Fred's post after having written the epistle below. So I'll share a couple comments to Fred's email: I think it's the sharing of "what we do" that may tell us whether there's a concert grand standard out there. I've never used "quads" but I'll give it a shot. With that, here's my epistle: Where is everybody? We're in the midst of finals here, so things have slowed down considerably for me. In any case, regardless of the lackluster respone, I'll be happy to engage in hearty discussion. A440A@aol.com wrote: >hot damn, this oughta be good! > That's what I thought. I guess we're the only two with free time right now. > >Richard writes: ><< I'm curious about what the "standard" for concert tuning might be. How >do you tune a concert grand in equal temperament (9' Steinway, for >example)? What are your standards? > > Standards are probably non-existant as far as what the tunings are. >Unisons must meet a standard to satisfy me, but in terms of stretch, there >are different widths that I use for different venues, and also for different >uses. > In the recording studios, where the piano is often simply playing a rhythm >guitar part, I compress the bass so that even though the fullness created (by >alignment of low notes' partials with mid note fundamentals) might be >lessened, the problems of ensemble tuning are avoided. Those problems are >usually from bass players that tune to Korg tuners and wonder why the fully >stretched piano is flatter than they are. I know, I know, they should learn >what is what, but I am there for the money, and when the studio rate is >ticking, time is money and it is no place for inharmonicity lessons. > > I agree with most of what you say here, especially the part about tuning for bass players. The faculty bass player here wants nearly pure 4ths going down from the temperament. The fifths sound terrible to me, but that's what he wants. As far as the different stretch widths, that's what I'm trying to really get at with this thread. >By the same token, if I know I am tuning for solo piano, I let the thing >stretch itself to a greater degree, > Yes. The piano tells you what it wants. >and if it is a gospel session, I usually >have pure triple octaves by the time I get to C6. They(the divinely inspired >musicians) seem to like this. Otherwise, stretching no farther than >purifying the double octave from C5 on up works for the great majority. > Do you have an aural test for the triple octave or do you just play the triple octave to listen for beats or lack thereof? It seems to me that the triple octave involves a double stretch factor because the notes going down from A4 are stretched down and the notes above A4 are stretched up. Many of the double octaves also have this double stretch factor. It seems to me that A4 is basically the continental divide for tuning. Measurements across that divide have rivers flowing away from each other. This means the piano automatically sets up a double stretch in the double and triple octaves because they straddle the divide. But the single octaves don't have to be overstretched because most will fall on one side or the other of the double strech factor. The midrange is where the single octaves straddle the divide making for more critical compromises. Fourths may have to beat faster and 5ths should be purer >>>I know pianos vary, but what are >>> >>> >you personally trying to achieve when you tune concert grands?<< I personally want to hear the pianist say, "this sounds better than >anything I have every heard"! ( I would encourage all of us to shoot for >that). Sometime this means getting away from ET. > Satistfying the customer is job one. My point is that if we have a good standard and meet the criteria, then the customer will be satisfied. I think the standard is more clear cut than we've recognized. I'll state it below. >>>1. When you set the temperament, how wide is your temperament octave, >>> >>> >4:2, or wider? > > Once again, it depends. If I am tuning for a Rach. concerto, I know >that I will want a lot of brilliance in the top end, so I begin with a wider >temperament than otherwise. If it is a Mozart chamber piece, I shrink that >temperament octave to somewhere near a 4:2. > > > >>>If you choose wider, are you comfortable with the >>> >>> >compromised (i.e. faster beating) 4ths, even if you get nicer, cleaner >fifths? > > If there is a slow roll in your single octaves in the 5th octave, >there will be some near-pure fifths and the fourths will begin to approach >their limit. This is more evident on bright pianos, so how much tempering >the fourths can stand is somewhat instrument dependant. > There are two factors here--voicing and physics. Pianos that are bright have to be tuned cleanly or fast beats in the 5th (the 6:4 partials), the 4th (4ths too wide) and the octave (octaves stretched too far) get in the way . In fact overly bright pianos need to be voiced to really tune them at all because there's simply too much going on and the piano may be virtually untunable. But it seems to me the physics still applies. A mellower piano may hide a slow roll in an interval, but it's still there. A standard still applies. I don't think you should go against the physics in order to over stretch intervals to achieve brightness or brilliance. >>>3. When checking octaves and double octaves, do you strive for equal >>> >>> >beating 3rds, 10ths, 17ths, or do the 10ths beat faster than the 3rds, >and the 17ths faster still? > > I was taught to always make the 10th faster than the 3rd, the 17th faster >than the 10th. (B. Garlick). I follow this in my tuning, making judgements >of HOW much faster, depending on venue. >Making an equal beating between the 10th and 3rd can produce a very clean >sounding octave but the overall effect seems to be a dead sounding piano! > I also was taught that 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths should beat as you learned from B. Garlick. To my way of thinking the paramater for how fast depends on the double octave. If I want to keep the double octave pure, then the difference in beat speeds among the three intervals must be minimal. If I'm lazy, I can tolerate from 2 to 4 beats in the double octave and the beats in the 3rd, 10th and 17th will be more widely different. >>>4. In the top octave do you tune clean 2:1 octaves, clean 4:1 double >>> >>> >octaves, or do you stretch more than clean double octaves? > > There is, once again, a lot of leeway up there. It can all sound good, >but some particular uses of the piano can profit from more or less stretch. >A really well integrated tuning will begin the stretch in the temperament >that creates the desired amount of sharpness in the top octave without ever >seeming to damage anything inbetween. Virgil Smith is a master of this. It >creates a very "open" sound to the piano. However, I have also had customers >that felt that the piano sounded "tense" rather than "open". > Your customers' varying responses are interesting. I've always liked Virgil Smith's tunings and tried to make sense of his descriptions of what he does. To me he lets the piano dictate the stretch according to his "standard" which I think is definable. >>>If you stretch more than clean double octaves, how do you know how much >>> >>> >more >stretch you're introducing? > > When the fourths in the 5th octave call attention to themselves, you may >have gone too far, too fast. > So 4ths determine the maximum width for the octaves, if I understand you correctly. Is it possible to actually have 5ths that are wide and still keep the 4ths under control? I tend to think that pure 5ths are the limiting factor along with the speed of the 4ths. >>>Are you comfortable with the fast beating single octaves? >>> >>> > >No. > > > >>>What test(s) do you use when stretching beyond the >>> >>> >clean double octave, especially in the last 1/2 of the top octave? > >Arpeggios, ears, tastes, and mood of the day. > > I prefer the pure double octave because it seems I can get more consistent results aurally. Also if I use my ETD, I can get good readings. When I listen to the 17ths, they're beating plenty fast and so is the single octave. Why would I want to push the notes higher and give up the consistency and wideness I already have with the double octave? The problem I have with the folks that tune pure triple octaves in octave 7 is how do they do that consistently and why would they want the 17ths and single octaves obnoxiouly fast? > Maybe the greater amounts of stretch are better suited for "exciting" >music, and the smaller octaves promote the sonority found in more "mellow" >music. Cross reference that with the voicing of the particular piano >involved and there really isn't a "standard" I can define. > >Ed Foote RPT >www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/ >www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html > > > > I'll stick my neck out and say that I think there is a standard. I think it would work for any concert grand and be a consistently reachable goal Here it is. 1) 5ths no wider than pure in octaves 2, 3, 4, 5 2) 4ths no wider than 2 bps (maybe 3 bps), especially in octaves 3, 4, & 5 3) double octaves pure to no more that 4 bps wide 4) 3rds, 10ths, 17ths either pure or slightly increasing in speed, the difference determined by the double octave (pure to 3 or 4 beats wide, or your mood of the day) 5) single octaves in octaves 2, 3, 4, 5 should not be more that 1 - 2 beats wide depending upon step 4 above 6) octave 7 no wider than pure double octaves 7) 17ths in octave 1 = no faster than the slowest temperament 3rd. I haven't brought up bass tuning too much, except for point # 7. But I think the "standard" applies--clean 5ths, reasonable 4ths (1-3 bps wide), 6:3 octaves to C2, slow beating 17ths from C2 to the bottom of the piano. So what say you, Ed.? Is this standard too broadly defined? Richard West ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/f0/a1/a2/b1/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC