Feedback appreciated

[Andrew and Rebeca Anderson]

On some scales, and, particularly on a forcefully struck bass string 
there is an attack phase which is sharp.  I have tuned an old Knabe 
that had a very long attack phase, sounded beautiful but it was slow 
to tune.  You can start tuning a unison in the attack phase but 
intervals should be tuned on/to the sustain phase.
So, was this what you are talking about, Dave?

Andrew

At 08:25 PM 11/16/2005, you wrote:
>David Andersen wrote:
>
>>Hi, folks----I got a beautiful letter from Virgil Smith today about 
>>my tuning article in this month's Journal; I'm so happy he liked 
>>it, and it gave me a thrill to be acknowledged by him.
>>
>>What did you guys think of it? I'd love some feedback, praise, 
>>scorn, whatever.......
>>
>>David Andersen
>
>You asked for it:
>"Cracking" a unison sounds to me like nothing different from tuning 
>a truly beatless unison, which we all strive for anyhow, but maybe 
>don't actually accomplish on each and every tuning, except perhaps 
>on an extra-special "concert tuning" on which we spend two or more hours.
>Under "A Few Helpful Hints," you say the "true beat" doesn't appear 
>for 3-5 seconds after the two notes are played, especially in the 
>fourths. But two paragraphs hence, you say the fourths all beat at 
>1.5 - 2.5 bps! If they're beating that fast, how can it take 3 - 5 
>seconds for the ("true," whatever that is) beat to appear? In the 
>same paragraph, you say A3-D4 and C4-F4 might even beat faster than 
>we think would be right. What's "right"? I assume we're tuning equal 
>temperament, in which case fourths in the temperament area beat at 
>about 1 bps. 2.5 bps for a fourth would be quite noticeable, I would 
>think. But with all three strings open (which, in the end, when 
>doing a final check, is how we would listen to the piano anyhow), 
>you say the beats slow down a bit. I don't agree that having the 
>unisons tuned will slow down the beat of the interval! Do they 
>actually slow down or just seem to?
>The terms you use to describe widths of intervals, such as: 
>swellingly beatless, almost beatless, very slightly narrowed, a tiny 
>bit, a frog hair, slightly, a hair, a little, ever-so-slightly more, 
>quite a bit more, slow roll, a bit, slower than, just a bit, super 
>fast, and slightly narrow, are all too subjective to actually use in 
>precisely setting a temperament, in my opinion. Without defining 
>what these means in terms of beats per second, temperaments tuned 
>with these guidelines by several different tuners probably would all 
>come out differently.
>Then in the third-to-last paragraph, you say, "If all the fourths on 
>the piano are beating the same slow roll, then the stretch will be 
>exactly on the money out to the extremes." I really don't believe 
>this is true, and certainly not for all pianos. The beat speeds of 
>fourths and most other intervals increase slightly as one ascends 
>the scale in a piano tuned to equal temperament. And is there really 
>such a thing as the stretch being "exactly on the money"? Different 
>degrees of inharmonicity in different pianos require different 
>amounts of stretch.
>Also, I know that the "Virgil Smith phenomenon" has been 
>demonstrated, or supposedly "proven" with an ETD, but in my opinion, 
>it is so small that's it's negligible. Maybe one in a hundred 
>pianists, if that, would even detect it. If you're regularly tuning 
>for the world's most demanding concert artists, it may be something 
>to consider. But for the spinets, consoles, and 5-foot grands those 
>of us "in the trenches" deal with every day, and which almost all 
>require a pitch raise because they get tuned only every 4 to 7 
>years, nah! I'm sorry. It's just not worth all the extra time 
>"cracking" unisons when they're going to drift out of tune by next 
>week anyhow, because of the pitch raise.
>But I'll try the temperament sequence, and maybe reserve the 
>technique for the next time I tune in Carnegie Hall or Lincoln Center.
>
>As an aside, though I respect Virgil Smith, his accomplishments, and 
>long-time career, tuning for top clients, and acknowledge that in 
>his mind, he knows what he's talking about, I have yet to see an 
>article that explains scientifically what is actually happening with 
>the partials and beats in what he calls the "natural beat" (of all 
>the partials sounding simultaneously, as opposed to listening to 
>just two coincident partials). I have yet to hear that "natural 
>beat." I can play an interval, with or without unisons tuned, and 
>hear the various beatings of various coincident partials, and 
>usually one is strongest, but if that's what he means, he should say 
>so. If anybody else knows what the so-called "natural beat" is in 
>scientific terms, i.e, exactly what is being listened to, what its 
>beat speed is, etc., or if its an entirely different phenomenon that 
>only a select few can hear, why don't they write an article and clue 
>the rest of us, or at least me, in?
>
>--David Nereson, RPT
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives