> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
On its surface this tuning looks a lot like the Handel Well. There is a
slight imbalance in the G M3, which is larger than the D M3 but should be
smaller. There are also significant imbalances in the series of m3s.
However, without the individual string offsets I can't calculate the beats
(at least, not without building a new spreadsheet for that purpose) -- so I
can't determine how well this tuning seems to reflect the published Bremmer
EBVT Bearing Plan.
I can say definitively that the figures Bill published on 9/1 for his own
piano ("The True Properties of EBVT") also has imbalances -- the E Major
Third is larger than the B or F# M3s, the C M3 is larger than the G M3 --
but these are less than what I calculated straight from the bearing plan.
That tuning was obviously modified by ear during the process, as Bill
continually stresses is a critical piece of the process. However, the
results do not appear to follow the EBVT bearing plan.
For example, Bill has stated that "F3A3, G3B3, G3E4, and C4E4 are all to
beat *exactly* the same, 6 beats per second" (and later he has stated that
this may be 5 per second); but on his own piano, if the offsets he published
are correct, those beat rates would be as follows: 5.3, 4.5, 5.6, and
6.3 respectively. Not far off, but certainly not all exactly the same.
Bill also states categorically that F3C4, C4F4, F3Bb3, Bb3F4, F#3C#4, and
G#3C#4 must all be pure. On his own piano, if the offsets he published are
correct, the FC beats at 0.6 and F#C# beats at 0.3.
Bill further states that major thirds on A and Bb must beat *exactly* the
same, about 9 per second; if his offsets are right, his piano has those
beating at 8.5 and 9.7 respectively.
My conclusion here is not that this is a flawed temperament, but that the
bearing instructions are probably inaccurate (because the theory produces a
more imbalanced tuning than the actuals, which Bill has also published twice
now) ; and I suspect that the FAC reading of offsets on 9/1 is also probably
slightly inaccurate (because they calculate out to several significant
differences in interval size than he measured). I suspect that when Bill
tunes a "pure" fifth he is actually tuning something slightly contracted
(and the BbF slightly expanded). I suspect that the tuning tends to sound
good because the M3s on C, G, D, and F are all sweeter than ET, and that
when he tunes the rest of the piano he compensates, adjusts, fixes to reduce
the imbalances, and that his method of tuning octaves is probably so sweet
that it alone makes the piano sing.
|| ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
jason kanter * piano tuning * piano teaching
bellevue, wa * 425 562 4127 * cell 425 831 1561
orcas island * 360 376 2799
|| ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
From: SidewaysWell1713@aol.com
Reply-To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:03:40 EDT
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Subject: More EBVT Data
List,
I believe I've made my point about Ed Foote's motivations for writing what
he did, so for the moment, I'll drop the moniker. Yesterday, I tuned an
interesting old upright which had been superbly rebuilt by the local
university staff. It was a Grinnell Brothers full size upright from
Detroit.
I chose this instrument to take readings because it does demonstrate a few
points I've always made. Not every old upright is worthless and despite
scaling irregularities that ETD programs may not handle well, they can
sometimes be quite useful and beautiful instruments. This is one of those.
It has plain wire down to B2. Although I would have chosen to rescale it,
this one was not and there are many other pianos built like this. The
Yamaha G1 comes to mind. Even the Steinway L has this problem. Although
many rebuilders do rescale Steinway L's (and O's which are essentially
alike), Steinway summarily dismisses any suggestions from the field on how
it could make its instruments better.
So, tuning, whether aural or electronic, must cope with these. We can't all
say that we won't tune them because there wouldn't be many pianos left to
tune if we did. I believe this is a prime example of the kind of piano
which would produce skewed and incorrect results by using an FAC program
with or without correction figures for another kind of temperament. I can't
be sure about other ETD's since I have no experience with them.
It was tuned very, very carefully by ear and the results of the interval
sizes for Major 3rd's, 5ths and minor 3rds were carefully measured and
recorded. What the readings show is what I expected. There are no
imbalances within a narrow range near the F3-F4 octave but yes, one does
have to be very careful in tuning or there could easily be. Once out of
that narrow range however, the wildly varying inharmonicity causes what
might be *interpreted* as numerical imbalances.
When I saw these, I checked very carefully again and again to see if I had
made any aural tuning errors but was satisfied with the way it sounded and
let it stand. The sizes of the intervals do not remain consistent from
octave to octave. The combination of efforts to stretch the octaves and to
compromise for inharmonicity cause this. For this reason, I think that
computing the correction figures has to be limited to work done in the F3-F4
range. Otherwise, other factors will inevitably skew the results.
I'm going to warn Ed Foote right here and now not to start saying anything
about this at all, such as "inconsistency" or anything else. I have been
taking readings of interval sizes long before Ed Foote ever tried to tune
any HT's. If he would take my suggestion and record the results of his own
work as he usually does it, he would find that each piano yields its own,
unique results which are to a point, unpredictable.
Ed would like to have us all believe that simply dialing up a program and
applying correction figures to it would always yield a chart of uniform
results where interval sizes always turn out to be predictably the same.
This is not true.
Ed Foote has never at any time had a kind word to say either to or about me
even though I have had many for him and his efforts. When he calls my
tuning a "disaster", he gets called "Uncle Tom". When he says my tuning is
"inconsistent, unauthentic and full of imbalances", I'll have my own sharp
criticism of what he says and does. I take another approach to tuning.
Either strictly aural or by using my SAT in the Direct Interval mode to
create the exact kinds of intervals I desire.
While using the correction figures method is valid to a point, it doesn't
allow the tuner to really know what is being done unless that person goes
through the tuning and aurally verifies it. Dr. Sanderson will be the first
to tell you this. It only gets you close, it is a calculated approximation.
I don't believe at all in teaching people they can have the experiences of
the different temperaments there are just by offering them some numbers to
dial in. Sure, there are always people who want to take that short cut
approach and who wouldn't know how to construct a temperament from scratch
but that's not me nor do I advocate it.
What I completely and totally resent is the constant attempts to discredit
what I do in favor of that shortcut approach. When that stops, I won't have
anything to complain about. If Ed Foote wants to continue to play his
insult, defamation and discrediting game, I have bigger and better
ammunition than he does.
Here are the Direct Interval results from B2-F4. Note that the note B2
itself appears quite out of line. It is one of those "oingo-boingo",
wolfish sounding strings where, particularly for the intervals of the 5th
and octave, two sets of irreconcilable coincident partials can be heard.
But this is the reality of tuning and the challenge. I prefer to meet that
challenge and find a solution, not dismiss it as being beneath my dignity
and thus provide the customer with a poor representation of a tuning.
Ron Koval and Jason Kanter, do what you will with these figures.
Note M3rds 5ths mi3rds
B2 19.7 -2.4 -11.8
C3 9.3 -2.8 -10.2
C#3 17.5 -0.3 -14.3
D3 9.1 -4.3 -14.4
D#3 14.1 -5.3 -21.1
E3 14.4 -2.5 -12.5
F3 10.5 0.0 -18.1
F#3 17.2 0.0 -13.9
G3 9.9 -4.4 -19.2
G#3 15.1 -0.5 -17.6
A3 12.8 -1.1 -10.7
A#3 12.2 0.4 -17.6
B3 15.0 -5.3 -16.3
C4 7.6 -2.4 -20.4
C#4 16.2 0.0 -16.0
D4 9.3 -0.7 -15.4
D#4 15.7 -1.5 -22.2
E4 15.0 -0.4 -13.4
F4 11.5 1.8 -18.2
Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin
Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-
<http://www.billbremmer.com/>
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/91/14/45/b4/attachment.htm
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC