Hey there Fred :-) comment interspersed: Hi Rik, For me it is a question of where to put emphasis, what is most useful to obsess about. In tuning, I find I obsess more and more on unisons. Going back to some of the early subject matter in this thread, to string coupling, I'd say that while coupling occurs, there is a difference between a coupled unison and a true unison, and it is both apparent to the ear and to the ETD (though sometimes there needs to be some interpretation of the ETD output or fiddling with position of the devise relative to the strings). Coupling could be said to be the point at which "beating stops." Which means that there aren't any full "loud soft" cycles. There is, however, still an interference pattern, and we hear it as a wow (to try to put it in letter form. I think we all know what the sound is). Then there is the point where all that wow disappears, and the unison is completely clear. Yes.. I like your description of that and it immediately brings to minds some posts I wrote along those lines a few years back. I used a phrase something along the lines of "a single beat that doesnt repeat itself" to describe your "wow". We are way past anything that can be called a period beat per second. Sometimes however, no matter what you do you can not completely get this to disappear... and why is a matter that has taken a good deal of my attention of late. No doubt there are several things involved, but all that is good for another thread by itself to be sure. To what degree any of this constitutes a difference between a "coupled unison" and a "true unison" I am unsure. I am not really quite sure what you mean by either term in this context... especially the second of the two. I would argue tho, that there are at least a few intervals equally important and equally subject to this same kind of behavior as the unison is.. and various alignments of these will color a tuning much in the same way one can color a unison. One can, for example leave the "wow" present... stretched out as long as one can get it to emulate a kind of bloom effect. Or one can go for as clear a sign-wave like unison one can get... living with the uneven degree of falseness of all sorts that is always present to some greater or lesser degree. Now if a whole piano is tuned with all unisons as close as possible to what I describe as completely clear, the sound of the instrument is pretty dramatically different from an instrument where there is still some wow in many if not most unisons. I think that difference is quite a bit greater than what can be achieved by fooling around with tweaking the placement of pitches relative to one another. Always assuming a reasonable set of parameters as a starting point. I am quite aware that many people swear by many subtle alterations of pitch "by aural means" and others swear by their own formulae of non- equal. It's a controversial topic. The position I am taking is quite naturally subject to the criticism you offer: "I am saying it doesn't matter, hence I am saying that nothing matters" (to take it to its logical conclusion). But, hey, I have a fairly tough hide and can take it. In any case, I am certainly not saying "nothing matters," but simply putting priorities where I think they really lie. With respect to tuning, I think unisons, and every single unison on the piano, are by far the biggest factor, and tend to be discussed far less than this or that magic formula for temperament and/or stretch. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu I would agree with your opening line here... indeed started in on that as I ended my last. But your second sentence here is perhaps where we part ways... if for no other reason then that same kind of decision about how clean several dominant intervals are (like the 5th, 12th, octaves, double octaves) are also subject to this same effect. And the kinds of coloring differences one has to choose from are very much along the same lines as with the unison itself. Those subtle alterations of pitch "by aural means" are exactly along the same lines IMHO. And I would indeed like to see a person completely "earless" use a machine to get those "wowless" unisons (or other intervals) with any degree of consistency that can match the highly trained ear.... let alone that ear working in concert as it were with an ETD in a very purposeful and informed manner. As to what matters and doesn't in the greater scheme of things... Grin... it was not my intention to put you in a position where the toughness of you hide was a needed friend to you. I was just trying to point out that in using the <<personal prestige>> argument with regard to why some aural tuners "want to believe"... one can find equal prestige motivations the other way around... and with just as little real worth beyond pointing out that perhaps our egos from time to time cloud our ability to see as objectively clearly as we should. But to be sure... that works both ways in this regard and with equal force. As a tool for getting to the truth of this area of mutual interest... I suspect that reasonings value to be quite limited. No... should we really want to get to the root of such things as ... to what degree does this that or the other tuning <<bit>> matter or not... we need to actually design tests that are equipped to answer the right questions. Such as... Are there people out there that can actually hear with any (statistical) degree of significance the difference between a machine tuning and an ear tuning. I would argue there are, just as there are folks out there with a heightened degree of pitch sensitivity... which brings me to a closing thought.... isnt it curious that in all these discussions about ear/vs machine... that <<perfect pitch>> folks never get into the act ? I would think that especially in the bass regions of lesser instruments the weaknesses of the machine would quite clearly affect ones sens of absolute tone .... :) Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC