tuning "whole sound"

[Ron Koval]

Hi Julia - and all you tuner-types out there!

Ok, I'm going to try and take a stab at this one... get comfy, re-fill your 
drink - it may take awhile.

Some of your confusion on this topic seems to come from mixing the ratios 
used to describe the steps in a scale (12-tone Western music) and the 
numbers used to identify the partial relationships between two notes 
sounding together.

The skills used to listen to specific partials while tuning is a fairly 
recent development; I believe this was in response to the electronic tuning 
devices, such as the SOT, SAT and the early strobe devices.  Prior to that 
time, tunings were set, especially after setting the temperament, using 
fouths and fifths as a fine-tuning for the octaves.  (Many still rely 
heavily on fourths and fifths in their daily practice.)   Since the machines 
tuned completely focused on a single partial, similar techniques evolved 
within the aural community, allowing tuners to force a smooth progression of 
intervals measured by specific partial matching upon most pianos.

Here's where things start getting fun...  My first introduction to the PTG 
was a meeting where Virgil Smith was demonstrating tuning- the whole sound 
approach.  My scientific training balked at just about everything that came 
out of his mouth.... yet the tuning.... there must be something that he was 
doing "right", even if nothing he said seemed to make sense.  Beatless 
octaves?  They simply don't exist, and there's proof in the back issues of 
the Journal, if you care to go digging.  A few years later, as I was working 
on setting up custom tunings with the Verituner, I was forced to rethink 
this very topic.

How do we tune a unison?  Set one string, and then sound them together.  We 
then change the tuning of the second string, moving from dissonence, through 
consonence, to disssonence, and finally back to the most consonent, ringing 
location.  No use of thirds / tenths, or any interval tests, just using the 
whole sound to find the "best" location for the second note.  With my former 
experience as a bassoonist, this comes as second nature.  Then I thought 
about the octave.  Wind players can match octaves without any tests, why 
can't/don't we?

My goal with the Verituner was to come up with a blended approach to finding 
the best location for the octaves thoughout the piano, since it is capable 
of lisening to more than one partial at a time.  The older technology 
switches the listening/tuning partial throughout the scale of the piano.  
The published aural directions, focus as well on the 6:3 in the bass, 
progressing through the 4:1, and sometimes the 2:1 octave types, with the 
related tests to prove the matching of the partials. (lots of variations, as 
well as using other types in different sections.)  Even within the aural 
tuning tradition, I heard different approaches to tuning the A3-A4 octave.  
One tuner said to use the 3rd-10th test to make sure they both beat the 
same, while others advocated having the 10th always beat a little faster 
than the 3rd.  Hmmmmm....

Well, they're BOTH right, sometimes.  I re-approached the interval of the 
octave, starting with the A3-A4 octave.  I tuned it just like a unison.  
When faced with a unison where there is a slight mismatch, whether in the 
bass, or a falseness to one string, I try to find the "best", or "least bad" 
location for the unison.  I tried the same thing with the octave, repeating 
the test over and over to make sure that this was a reliable method.  I 
won't call these beatless octaves, but I have found that there usually is a 
"best" location to make the octave work.  By building a framework of octaves 
that work together first, in all the permutations of singles, doubles, 
triples, and more, I think any tuner can come up with more resonant tunings. 
  By taking the "big view" first, problem pianos can be tamed, though it may 
require a multi-partial tuner to have much success, since forcing a smooth 
curve tuning to a single partial while tuning only looks at a small piece of 
the sound that the musician will hear.

I now recommend that everyone using a machine pre-tune a few A's (or 
whatever note you prefer) to see if the "landmarks" are in the right 
location.  If you set A3 where the machine wants it, and then are able to 
shift A3 to find a better tuning, (sounding with the A4) the tuning will 
come out better if you learn how to adjust tunings with your machine.  I 
found that in just the A3-A4 octave, the "best" width varies by intstument - 
as narrow as a 2:1, to almost a 6:3 type.  My hopes for a universal tuning 
style in the Verituner were crushed.... or shifted, as I developed the 
"landmark" approach I wrote about.

Ah yes, we finally come to the bass.  Where the partial ladders become less 
predictable, and the strength of the partials can be all over the place.  
It's very interesting (frustrating?) to shift the lower note and find more 
than one "nice" place to set the octave.  These are notes (the sounding 
octave) that have significant enough mismatches in the partials to provide 
clear options to the tuner.  At that point, add more notes to the mix, and 
see what sounds "best"  (double, or triple octaves, etc..)

gotta go for now - ask some questions, and I'll give it a try again!

Ron Koval