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

[Kent Swafford]

On Oct 16, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ed Sutton wrote:

> Kent-
>
> Have you been tuning some small, compromised scale pianos as well as  
> larger grands?

Sure. I'll try to do a recording of one.

> What do you hear in the mid-range 3rds, 4ths,5ths and 8vas?  
> Particularly on small pianos.

A good tuning.

>
> How would these tunings do if used for an exam master tuning?

These are a bit wider than is normal for a master tuning, but IMO they  
could work fine except perhaps in the high treble where the exam calls  
for clean single octaves.

>
> Are there any user choices to be made or is it basically a hard- 
> wired program?

Hard-wired.

>
> And does it tell you how many angels can dance on the head of a  
> tuning pin?

Of course. More if you use OnlyPure. Naturally.


>
> Ed Sutton
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kent Swafford
> To: College and University Technicians
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] P-12ths was: Tuning a Steinway D and  
> aBosendorferImperial together
>
> 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/20081017/d361e117/attachment.html