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

[Kent Swafford]

The tunings sound good in the bass. They are wider than a pure 3:1 12th.
Beyond that, I can't characterize the tunings as to width. PureTuner tunes
some pianos wider in the bass than that to which I am accustomed and some
pianos narrower that that to which I am accustomed...
Kent


On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Anderson
<andrew at andersonmusic.com>wrote:

> 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/e5fdc950/attachment.html