[CAUT] P-12ths was: Tuning a Steinway D and aBosendorfer Imperial together

[Andrew Anderson]

I did a P12 (3:1 as much as supported by the VT100) tuning on a D for  
a visiting Steinway Artist who felt the piano was "lifeless" (couldn't  
have said it better myself) and she loved it.  I felt the treble was a  
little too strained sounding.  The bass was way too narrow for my taste.

Verituner doesn't support 3:1 or equivalents all the way across the  
scale.  I'm curious if Stopper's version sounds better in the bass?

Andrew Anderson

(Ning An characterized the piano this way, "A tale of two pianos.   
Where is the other half of the good one in the bass?")  This piano is  
still on the short warranty and it is dead in the "money octave/killer  
octave/has a severe case of Steinway Tonal Deficit Disorder."  You pick.


On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Kent Swafford wrote:

> Fred, your post is thoroughly reasonable.
>
> I have been trying to understand Stopper for almost 2 years now.  
> There are some obstacles. First there are language and cultural  
> barriers. And second, there is the simple fact that Stopper is  
> trying to make money from his discoveries; his vagueness may not be  
> a matter of not "grasping the complexities" as much as they are  
> simply wishing to keep the knowledge proprietary.
>
> But make no mistake, Stopper's credentials are solid, and in 4  
> months of intensive use of PureTuner (my nickname for Tunic  
> OnlyPure) I have only been able to corroborate his claims, not  
> refute them.
>
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> wrote:
>
> What I am trying to do is to point out that, IMO, "there is nothing  
> magic" about the 19th root of 3 as a basis for tuning. It is simply  
> indistinguishable from other mathematical ways of establishing equal  
> half step relationships in the real, inharmonic world of piano tuning.
> Stopper argues otherwise (see his article, referenced in a post I  
> sent previously). I don't find his arguments at all compelling.  
> Others may. He makes the 19th root of 3 division the basis for the  
> "Stopper comma," which he makes great claims for. He does say that  
> to the "additional stretch" produced by beginning with a pure 12th  
> must be added the inharmonicity of the piano, though his explanation  
> of how this is done is VERY vague, and doesn't demonstrate a very  
> good grasp of the complexities involved. An example of his  
> explanation of inharmonicity and tuning:
>  "The inharmonicity itself pushes the whole scale away from the  
> theoretical frequencies derived by the scale functional formula. The  
> inharmonicity is already considered when tuning aurally, since the  
> ear makes an integration of the harmonics to a "virtual pitch."  If  
> an aural tuner tunes a slight beat-rate-narrow fifth, that fifth  
> remain about the same amount beat-rate-narrow in instruments with  
> different inharmonicity, wheras the absolute frequency deviation is  
> up to some cents on stiff strings in the treble."
> He claims "the recent discovery of the Supersymmetry between the  
> beats and the frequencies" based on his tuning. Perhaps if it is  
> demonstrated to me, I will be blown away. I am skeptical. Actually,  
> he seems more focused on electronic and other "essentially harmonic"  
> instruments than on acoustic pianos.
> Regards,
> Fred Sturm
> University of New Mexico
> fssturm at unm.edu
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20081016/716542ad/attachment-0001.html