Fred, You said,"...beyond a certain point of refinement, it really doesn't matter." It seems to me that you've given up on trying to identify/quantify/ specify the broader world of tuning the whole piano and chosen to focus on unisons as the the best way to really judge good tuning. You may have a point. The importance of unisons can't be overstated. However important unisons are, the as yet undefined "perfect" temperament and related octaves/intervals throughout the whole piano need more discussion for two reasons. One is that more discussion may result in better descriptions of what we do. I know that a lot of ink has been spilled on trying to define tuning, but it's clear that things still remain unclear, and ambiguous. Maybe some day someone will come up with something that provides a better measuring stick for tunings. Secondly, there's always a political element to things, even tuning. I know you haven't given up on trying to do your best and improve. Some people, however, will use ambiguity, uncertainty, and lack of clarity to give up. They might say, "No one can tell me what is really right, so I'll stop trying to get it right. After, all, my customers are satisfied." Satisfying customers is job one, but striving to do better and set higher personal standards is also part of the job. I contend that the unintended consequence of whispering, "it doesn't really matter" is that it discourages people. And that's sad on a personal level. On a practical level that can be for some beginners or even old timers an excuse for poor work or for just putting the work on cruise and not paying attention. The opportunity to improve comes from having good information available and being poised and ready to integrate that information personally. Saying "it doesn't matter" can diminish both sides of that equation. Richard West On Jun 14, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Richard Brekne wrote: > Hi Fred. > > I look forward to getting some PC time to sit and listen you your > recordings. I've up to this point never had a problem discerning > between an ET and a Well, and have run into so far 2 pianists at > the U that immediately pick up on the difference as well. Still I > rose your exact point in a similar discussion a couple years back > and Ed Foote was immediately on line with a reply claiming his > classes on the matter show conclusively the majority of techs Do > hear the difference. I defer to him on that issue. > > As to what the Tuneoffs show or not. I Dont think they can show > anything even close to conclusively as to whether it matters or > not. They were not designed to do so. In fact, they weren't really > designed to show anything at all directly. As to whether it matters > or not. This immediately depends on the arena we are in. Clearly > for most listeners it makes no difference... not even indirectly. > But to show whether it matters or not, you have to design a test > which first shows whether or not any significant number of people > can notice such nuances in tunings. I would be very very > surprised, given the amazing quality of the humans senses when > first really put to tests to find there were not some significant > numbers of people who are capable of hearing such differences right > off, and even perhaps a few at this point who consciously can > identify what those differences are about. > > I'll turn your other reasoning around on you just for the sake of > making a point. We could just as easily say "It is a hard concept > for piano techs to accept that it DOES make a difference since we > have invested so many resources in acquiring and using ETDs, and > find so many easy shortcuts in their use that provide large amounts > of motivation to justify saying... it doesn't matter". > > Let me stretch the point just a bit further... in perhaps a bit > over obvious direction but one that illustrates my point. At this > stage in keyboard development and for the greatest percentage of > listeners... most can not discern the difference between the > keyboard and an acoustic piano. So really.. by the same reasoning > it really doesn't matter whether we use a Clavinova, or a piano... > with rare exception. > > Case in point... just tuned for the Eagles a week back. They had > this Yamaha C7 equipped with factory installed just about ever > midi / effects electronics you could imagine, and built in > Helpenstill (Sp?) type microphones. The thing sounds just like an > electric piano. Perhaps the pianist himself sitting on the stage > may have been able to notice some real acoustic properties... but > most certainly no-one else in the audience would hear those.... yet > that sound was immediately accepted as piano sound. Piano sound is > getting morphed slowly but surely into a synthetic reconstruction > of it in the minds of more and more people all the time. > Your question as to whether it matters or not really and very > quickly evolves into a much larger question that get right into > human evolution / philosophical issues to begin with. I'd say right > off the top, yeah... it does matter. Not necessarily in a sense > that requires me to place some value comparison on the "matter- > ness" of it all. But there are noticeable differences, and they > most certainly do matter. > > Cheers > RicB > > > > Still... they did show one thing. The audience at hand was not > able to make a conclusive choice. Which either says more about > the audience then >anything else... or that once you get past a > certain degree of refinement we move over into the arena of how > conscious the tuning was and how well >the result matches the > intent. > > > > Or they show that, beyond a certain point of refinement, it > really doesn't matter. Which is a hard concept for a piano > technician to grasp, since we spend so much time > obsessing over those details. > We very badly want them to matter to our customers and our > audience. I'm not at all sure that, beyond unisons, they do. > Within a fairly wide (to our way of thinking) set of > parameters. I know it's a shocking point of view, and that I > should whisper it and hold my head in shame (because I > obviously just don't have the chops to accomplish a > fine tuning, or to distinguish one <G>), but it's the > conclusion I > have come to increasingly over time. On a somewhat related > matter, I have written more than once about my Moore/ET > experiments, and about my recordings that use both. I have now > completed production and release of the CD that is about half > and half ET and Moore (half the tracks one, half the other), > and it is on the web at http://cdbaby.com/cd/fredsturm5 with > samples (about a minute each) of all tracks. This recording > was > a redo of my first CD, which I recorded in ET. For my own > amusement, and the possible edification of others, I have made > a compilation of the two, with paired tracks. In each case, > the > first track is from the first CD, in ET. The second is the > same > music played on the same piano by the same pianist > in either ET or Moore. They sound different, because one > is five years later than the other and I changed > performance (I > certainly hope for the better), and the sound > quality is better (better equipment and recording engineer). > But you get a chance to hear > the piece in ET, knowing it is ET, before trying to judge > whether a track of the same piece is ET or Moore. I'll bring > some copies to Grand Rapids in case anyone is > interested. At some point I'll post > some of them them to my web page, when I finally get through > with designing and implementing it. (Too many more > interesting things to do > <G>). If we can't distinguish between ET and Moore, can we > distinguish between a "highly refined" "aurally > perfected" tuning (ET or > whatever) and one that hasn't been so refined? It makes one > wonder. At any rate, it makes ME wonder. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC