[CAUT] tuning paradigm (was P12ths)

[rwest1 at unl.edu]

Part of the problem in evaluating any tuning, electronic or aural, is  
the lack of a concrete tuning paradigm in our profession.  Good  
tuners all understand the variables and the problems but when I see  
attempts to describe our tunings, I don't see an adequate unified  
description of an aural tuning other than in general terms.  Whenever  
I hear people say the thirds are "too wide,"  I always want to know  
what "too wide" is.  There was a time when anything wider than a pure  
third was "too wide."  Therefore it seems that trying to judge a  
tuning  without having a paradigm to use as a measuring stick is  
futile, whether the tuning is a result of electronic "judgements" or  
aural "judgements."

What I mean by a unified paradigm involves comparing the various  
sections (bass, tenor, temperament, treble, upper treble) in ways  
that really describe their relationship to one one another.  My  
question is this:  What compromises work best?  Piano tuning is  
nothing but compromise since inharmonicity won't allow us to make  
every interval pure.  The factors that don't seem to come up very  
often in tuning discussions are balance, volume, practicality, and  
situation.

Balance:  Since the discussion has centered on tuning pure 12ths, I  
have to ask what that decision does to 4ths as you move out of the  
temperament area.  When you get to F#5, what happens to the 17th, D3- 
F#5?  Since intervals are expanded higher above the temperament and  
lower below the temperament, does the 17th become "too wide?"  By  
narrowing the P12th would the balance between the various sections of  
the piano be improved, i.e., would the 17ths be slower and the 4ths  
less noisy?  What's the standard?

Volume:  Not enough has been written about how the volume level of  
the various partials contribute to the overall sound of the piano.   
If, for example, you choose to tune perfect 12ths, does the  
interaction of the partials in other intervals actually enhance the  
sound of the piano?  In other words does one compromise actually  
favor an increase in volume and sustain in other intervals?  Does  
tuning a pure 4:1 double octave actually enhance the sound of the two  
single octaves that make up the double octave?  What's the standard?

Practicality:  I think that one reason tuners expand octaves has  
nothing to do with achieving a good result. I think  we all have a  
general "standard" that we're shooting for, but we don't have all day  
to try to achieve the standard.  It's always a safe bet to leave a  
note a little high in the treble and a little low in the bass.   
Having a fairly wide berth on the high side in the treble speeds up  
the tuning process; we can finish one piano and move on to the next  
more quickly.  Therefore over the years wider octaves and wider 3rds,  
10ths, and 17ths have become more acceptable just because that kind  
of tuning is easier.  To keep the 3rds, 10ths, and 17ths under  
control, i.e., not "too wide" while also maintaining tuning stability  
is more difficult.

Situation:  In the conundrum of pure thirds versus "jangly"  
supposedly equal tempered thirds, the location of the instrument  
makes a difference.  I was made more keenly aware of that last summer  
when I discussed this with a technician who does a lot of tuning for  
a recording studio.  She said that many engineers and artists prefer  
"narrower" tunings in a recording situation.  I think a concert hall  
tuning needs to be "wide" and that a home tuning should be somewhere  
in between.

Although I've found this email thread interesting, it doesn't mean  
much to me because I don't know what anybody really means when they  
describe a tuning as "bettter" or "worse" with intervals that are  
described as being "too wide" or "too narrow."  We don't have a  
unified standard.  As I've stated in other internet discussions on  
this general topic, I generally believe that a unified standard is  
possible to describe especially in regard to concert grands, as a  
starting point. Although I'll agree that there's some latitude for  
personal preferences, I think the range of latitude is less than  
generally accepted and often creates less than desirable results.

Richard West