In a message dated 12/11/99 4:53:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, kenrpt@mail.cvn.net (Ken Jankura) writes: << I am having a very hard time visualizing (auralizing) how tuning to the theoretical fundamental in a temperament from a SAT set at 0.0 can change an ET to a cycle-of-fifth based tuning where Gb, B, or Db thirds somehow magically become the calmest sounding RBIs and C, F, and G thirds become the most harsh, or am I misunderstanding the definition of RWT? If a Well temperament is a cycle-of-fifth based temperament with the key of C as the center, then a Reverse Well temperament is one with Gb as the center. Or am I missing something? Why would the C-E interval be faster, than the Db-F above it? And then very noticeably faster than the B-D#, which should be much slower beating than the A#-C# below it? It seems like we can talk about errors in stretch or individual notes of a temperament affecting the key color, but not about their reversing the entire structure. ____________ OK, rather than just ask, I just went and tuned the temperament section on a small grand in my shop to the SAT, no page, fundamentals set at 0.0. Here's what I found: the beat rates of all the thirds progressed from slower to faster (there was one third that might be counted a little faster than its upper neighbor, but just barely), but the scaling problems and lack of inharmonicity tempering, I presume, caused there to be a jump in rate between adjacent thirds more so than if I had been tuning it for real. The 4ths were a little slower than I like, and the 5ths a little faster. Is this a reverse well? If so, I don't get it. I put my own piano in Youngs Well a few months ago, and can plainly hear key color differences. On this grand experiment, I cannot. If you can elucidate, I'd appeciate it. With respect, Ken Jankura Newburg, PA >> I figured this might raise a question. It sure did for me too. I really would have expected the same results as you got, i.e., just a little irregularity that would not really create some kind of adverse harmony. And it probably does on a well-scaled piano. But remember the kind of piano I was working on, you know, the one everybody just loves to hate? I prefer not to use everybody's favorite 3-letter acronym but it generally represents the XXX of all brand XXX's, Kimball. When I was a beginner to PTG, this is the answer I would have been given from my Chapter Members: "Well, *there's* your problem, the name on the fallboard says it all!" This would generally followed by some more patronizing comments about how *we*, the more *experinced* **men** (***real*** **men**, that is) in this business would never even take the time to clutter up our busy minds with trying to figure out what the source of such a problem is on something that doesn't even deserve the name, piano. *We* only tune and rebuild Steinway's (but of course, we complain about how bad they are too). Hardee-har-har-har. Now let us proceed to more worthy questions such as the difference in impedance on pre-diaphragmatic soundboards and the current state of Teflon contamination in the Industry. So, I am glad that both Kent Swafford RPT and Dean Reyburn RPT recently addressed the subject. These pianos are out there and we need to try to make them sound as good as is reasonably possible. The customer who has this Kimball Console is one of the School District's best known, most beloved high school music teachers. His wife is also a very fine elementary school music teacher. They raised their children to adulthood and gave them music lessons on that piano. Their son has a career job but plays piano semiprofessionally. Their daughter is a Middle School Choir director. She uses an Acrosonic because she can see over it better than a studio piano. Are these all people to dismiss and scoff at as not having pianos which are worthy of our services? Is their teaching on the same level as popular opinion of the instruments they use? The merit awards, newspaper articles on lifetime careers of nurturing young musicians and "Best Middle School Choir" award certainly would contradict the decades of disdain I have heard from professional piano technicians about the instruments they use. Also, a few weeks ago, a customer of mine wanted his Kimball Viennese Edition 50" upright tuned for a wine & cheese party he was going to have. He asked for the name of a pianist, which I supplied. I attended the party and also sang a few numbers from the musical Carousel. The pianist had that piano swaying with his forceful rendition of the Carousel Waltz. Just about the time when I was thinking to myself that the piano really does have a pleasingly rich tone, the pianist commented to me, "I really *love* this piano, it's tone is so *rich*!". So much for the "I only do Steinways" crowd. Kent said in a recent post: <<Given that the inconsistency of inharmonicity through the scales of these pianos is so great, it should be on no surprise that tuners have different tastes and differing solutions to these tuning problems. Of course, these different solutions are worked out with great skill and effort and in the end conviction as well.>> While they were discussing the Baldwin Acrosonic, not a Kimball, it is another of the very common pianos that so many technicians scoff at. Here is what Dean said: <<Is the 4th partial the most consistent across the breaks? Jim's own data says it's not, and that's my experience also. If you do the math, the jumps in the 3rd partial curve at the bass/tenor and tenor/treble breaks are the smallest with the 3rd partial (1.26 and 0.90 cents respectively). The runner up is the *2nd* partial with jumps at the breaks of just under two cents. The IH (inharmonicity) jumps at the 4th partial are a distant third place at 4.67 and 3.43 cents at the two breaks. Take a look at the graphs of the partial ladders and the stability of the third partial (the yellow line) is even more striking than the numbers.>> He added Jim Coleman's remark: <<"In this chart you as see the irregularity of the lower partials especially">> And so I think Jim answered the question the most succinctly. There is such irregularity in the inharmonicity that tuning this instrument with a smooth, even temperament is really difficult, whether it is done aurally or electronically. There are ways to get around the problem either way but it takes skill, patience, persistence and above all, understanding of the problem itself. Now, since this was my first rough pass, I could have induced a little unknown error myself. But why so blatantly Reverse-Well? Why couldn't it have just as easily come out nicely, in a rough Well-Tempered pattern? Why does the unknown error seem to always fall on the adverse side, just like the buttered side of the toast always hitting the floor? Ken, I don't profess to know it all and so I can only say that I think I know why it happens some of the time, but not always. I recall a lecture on scale design by Klaus Fenner where he showed some kind of very irregular graph that was found in a very commonly known piano. This was to demonstrate the kind of difference he was trying to make in the industry. When asked what brand of piano that was, he replied, "I don't want to say it because I don't want to be crucified". Was it an Acrosonic, Kimball, Wurlitzer, Betsy Ross (Estey), or all of the above? Probably so. Can you think of more? Probably so, as well. Do we condemn them all and vow to only work on Steinways? If so, it is your right and privilege to do so. Good luck finding enough work to stay in business. There is probably someone else in your area who already has that corner of the market and is not about to give it up. But it is possible. But then again, how many Steinways are there really in your town or city? I don't live in New York City and you couldn't get me to do so for love nor any amount of money that would ever be paid to a piano technician. Your understanding of what is meant by the term Reverse Well is perfectly in order. You didn't mention the Ab-C 3rd however, which is often quite fast in a Well-Tempered tuning and always about the fastest in a Meantone. The usual and most frequent error I find is a slow, sometimes nearly pure Ab-C, the smoothest, most gentle B-D# and Db-F and the fastest, shrillest most sour sounding C-E you could ever imagine. And yes, this is often accompanied by a very fast F-A and G-B but the sweetest F#--A# you have ever heard. But this is always claimed to be "equal" by the most red-faced, white-lipped, name calling accusers of disgraceful behavior and unethical conduct there are in the business. So, in my opinion, Reverse Well has become much more than just a commonly made error in temperament, it has become the icon of ignorance, hypocrisy and fascist bigotry within the piano tuning profession. I am so glad that you recognize what Reverse Well is so that you can seek to avoid it in all of your work. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC