"The Tune-Offs" have become legendary. I was not there, but reports from people who were there convince me that nothing was proved. No recordings or measurements were made. In fact, the legends are seriously misleading about what happened. Jim Coleman may have kept his tuning offsets, and about half the audience felt his tuning was better than Virgil's. I don't think Jim considered the events to be serious studies. I do not know what the limits of Olympian human pitch perception are, so I don't know that human hearing is more accurate than digital measurement. If we were not somewhat tolerant, no one would have pianos, because we all know they deviate significantly within a few days (if not hours) of tuning, and yet, we still enjoy them. I also don't know what is the correct or perfect tuning, and I have seen people, including myself, have their opinions moved more by the natural smokes and mirrors of the situation than by genuine response to the rarities of temperament and tuning. (Sometimes I've been moved by my own smoke and mirrors, and have a video to prove it!) I hope I am an open minded non-believer, looking forward to learning something, but I am empiricist by bent of character. Although I can see how an infinite number of angels can dance on the head of a tuning pin, I gently dust them off to make room for my tuning lever. Therefore, I look for very simple numbers. I would like simple measurements in controlled and fair comparisons. I would like to hear, measure and compare "Pure Octaves," for instance. If the measurement of Mr. X's and Mr. Y's octaves are the same, on the same piano, and yet they ascribe to different methodologies, that tells us something. If Mr. B's "pure octave" is a different measure than Mr. C's "pure octave," that also tells us something. Ed S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> To: <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] String Coupling / SB and Bridge stiffness...and maybe Pure Sound > Hi Ed. See comments interspersed below. > > As I understand it, Tunic's inventor strongly urges tuning the > unisons string-by-string with his ETD program. Kent Swafford has > stated he believes > this is significant. Why? > > In answer to question about why the inventor urges this, I suspect its > because of the same reason Virgil and many like minded urge tuning unisons > as you go along instead of muting off the part or all of the piano, tuning > the middle string and then coming back to it. Because, as Virgil first > noted way back when... unisons end up at a slightly lower pitch (as a > general rule) when all three strings are sounded together then each > individual string does on its own. So if you want your target frequency > (from an ETD's perspective) to be met you need to assure that it is the > unison as a whole that meets this frequency, not each individual string. > Something I have been more or less doing fwiw for about 8 years with > Tunelab after reading many of Jim Colemans comments on string coupling. > I'm not sure what Kent finds significant about this, but I'd be interested > if its not along these general lines . > > Again I will ask you: once two strings have coupled, how will you > tell what is the difference between the two uncoupled frequencies? > > I'm not sure I understand the question... perhaps we are talking past each > other ? Of course once strings are coupled... well they are indeed > coupled and there is no way of telling the difference they might have in > an uncoupled state unless they are forced somehow into an uncoupled state. > You put up two mutually exclusive conditions as far as I can see there. > Maybe if you told me what you were pondering when you asked this I would > be able to see what you were trying to get to. > > I also have heard plenty of descriptions of legendary tunings. I do > not doubt that the world's greatest tuner produced the world's > greatest tuning. > I have not heard it, or seen measurements. > > Wellllll... there have been the much referred to tune-offs, and there are > many many written articles, posts and other data by a host of folks on the > subject... Askenfelts publications, Colemans work, Sandersons.... Ellis... > etc etc etc. I think we need not challenge that the ear can surpass the > machine... rather is self defining since it is the ear that in the end > judges and the machine cant even think... but before anyone reads into > this that the machine can therefore not do a very fine job... > misunderstand me correctly here... we are in the realm of very very high > quality tunings where either will do a very much more then acceptable by > all accounts job. That said... and ear tweak afterwards can improve > every single ETD tuning... and I HAVE measured enough to confirm to my own > satisfaction that. > > ES > > Cheers > RicB >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC