PianoTech Archive

Expand all | Collapse all

Cracking the unisons

  • 1.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-05-2006 23:14
    From Greg Graham <grahampianos@yahoo.com>
    
    I'm hoping someone will take a stab at a detailed
    definition of "Cracking The Unisons".  
    
    I've checked the archives, and lots of people mention
    Virgil Smith's technique, some claim to use it, only a
    few have partially described it, and I suspect I'm
    still not getting it.
      
    As I understand it:  If a three-string unison is found
    to be slightly flat or sharp compared to a test
    interval or two, you adjust the first string without
    muting the other two, then adjust the remaining
    strings to clean up the unison.  
    
    Reasons for doing this:  It's faster than messing with
    mutes, it produces better unisons, it avoids the
    "Virgil Smith Phenomenon" of a unison going flat when
    all three strings are vibrating compared to a single
    string of the unison by itself.  (Please, let's not
    debate the phenomenon.  I'm just asking about
    cracking.)
    
    Is this all there is to the technique?  I presume the
    hard part is being able to hear the beat clear up on
    the 2nd string while the 3rd is still beating away,
    akin to dealing with false beats.
    
    Some of the unanswered questions (in my mind):  
    
    1.  How big an adjustment to the unison are we making
    when using the cracking technique?  One BPS? Half a
    beat? One beat in 15 seconds?    
    
    2.  Do we move the 1st string to create a beat rate
    matching the out-of-tuneness of the unacceptable test
    interval, or is there some other method at work?  If
    the 5th is beating about 1/2 BPS too fast, do we
    create a 1/2 BPS unison, then move the other two
    strings to eliminate the beat?  
    
    3.  The single vs. three string pitch change "Virgil
    Smith Phenomenon": How big a change are we talking
    about?  I've read 0.1 to 0.3 cents.  
    
    How close is "close enough"?  I know I'm not yet good
    enough to hear some of these small errors in unison
    tuning.  I don't know if I could tune two strings to
    0.25 cents accuracy while the third was 1.0 cent out. 
    Heck, who am I kidding?  Sometimes I don't hear the 1
    cent error, especially in upper octaves.  0.25 cents
    mid keyboard is about one beat in 16 seconds, right? 
    Is that the kind of accuracy we are talking about
    here?
    
    I need to see and hear this demonstrated someday, but
    I'm hoping someone on the list who is a "crack addict"
    can help me with a better written description.  The
    archives need clarification, as do my unisons.
    
    Thanks, 
    
    Greg Graham
    Brodheadsville, PA
    One tuning exam (and several months) away from
    RPT-dom.
    
    
    
    
    		
    __________________________________________ 
    Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about. 
    Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
    dsl.yahoo.com 
    


  • 2.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-05-2006 23:45
    From David Andersen <david@davidandersenpianos.com>
    
    > I'm hoping someone will take a stab at a detailed
    > definition of "Cracking The Unisons".
    
    I'll take a crack at it....
    > 
    > I've checked the archives, and lots of people mention
    > Virgil Smith's technique, some claim to use it, only a
    > few have partially described it, and I suspect I'm
    > still not getting it.
    >   
    > As I understand it:  If a three-string unison is found
    > to be slightly flat or sharp compared to a test
    > interval or two, you adjust the first string without
    > muting the other two, then adjust the remaining
    > strings to clean up the unison.
    
    Close, no cigar.  You do use a mute.  Not using one would be wacky, and
    counterproductive.  Say you're setting the temperament---and this is
    assuming you tune all 3 strings of a unison as you go, no felt strip---and
    you get done, and you're playing through it, and the top note of the
    temperament octave seems a little flat to you.  When you make your checks,
    you confirm that it is, in fact a hair flat. Work with 2 of the 3 strings:
    mute the left hand string, put your lever on the pin of the middle string,
    And "crack" the 2 string, hopefully perfect unison by raising the pitch of
    the middle string slightly---meaning just a teeny bit---just a litle smear,
    a little phasing, no beat speed at all. Then pull the right string up to it,
    and check it with your checks.  If it feels/sounds good, and checks out,take
    the mute out and pull up the left string, then check again. Bingo.
    
    As you practice, you get quicker and quicker at this, and your tunings take
    on a greater and greater level of precision, which mean they sound better.
    
    IMO, mastering this skill is crucial for high-end work, really fine tuning.
    
    Good luck, Greg. Keep on working, trust your body.
    
    David Andersen
    Malibu CA
    
    P.S. If you can get hold of a November 2005 Journal, I have an article in it
    about open-string tuning which describes the process.
    


  • 3.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 10:02
    From william ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
    
    On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:44 AM, David Andersen wrote:
    > You do use a mute.  Not using one would be wacky, and
    > counterproductive.
    
    I'm relieved to hear that. Tuning a unison between two strings of a  
    unison with the third string also open is an aural tuning exercise  
    which I described in "Your Friend the Unison" (PTJ 1/97). Essentially  
    zero beating one beat rate while another, simultaneous, stays  
    constant. The faster both beat rates are (ie., the further apart the  
    starting frequencies are), the more elbow room you have in which to  
    avoid tuning the string worked on to the wrong "other"  string.  
    There's nothing to tell you which string pitch is being closed in on,  
    only that you've finally nailed it. That's when the remaining and  
    constant beat rate cleans up (ie., takes on the sound of a two-string  
    beat rate). Similar to tuning a two-string unison when one of the  
    strings has a false beat.
    
    It's probably possible once one is really good at cracking the  
    unison, to make such a tweak-sized correction as David has described  
    it, without a mute and with all three strings open. You'd have to 1.)  
    pay attention to which direction you'd cracked the unison (a no- 
    brainer), 2.) memorize the shape of that "cracking" (or if you're a  
    "pry-my-cold-dead-fingers-off-the-7th-partial" type like me, memorize  
    the beat speed of your favorite high partial), 3.) bump the second  
    string up/down to the first string until you hear that the beat rate  
    between the 3d string and the combination of the 1st two sounds like  
    a two string unison with clean strings instead one where one of the  
    strings has a false beat. Now, your have-way between 3d base and home  
    plate. 4.) tune the 3d string to the first two.
    
    Real Piano Men don't use mutes. (you know who you are.......)
    
    Cracking the unison was described by Virgil Smith in PTG 2/95,  
    although for him it was a very casual matter. I referred to it  as  
    "prior art" in my 1/97 article, although when I first tumbled on it,  
    it quickly took on the highly aural useful technique pitch shimming.  
    In years of conversation, I never ran across anyone doing something  
    similar. This is not to claim ownership of the technique of pitch  
    shimming (or even unison cracking), just to observe that as a  
    seemingly simple technique ready to be stumbled on by any aural  
    tuner, it's a remarkably obscure one.
    
    > IMO, mastering this skill is crucial for high-end work, really fine  
    > tuning.
    
    Copy that, good buddy!
    
    Bill Ballard RPT
    NH Chapter, P.T.G.
    
    "I'll play it and tell you what it is later...."
         ...........Miles Davis
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    


  • 4.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:14
    From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>
    
    At 09:47 AM 1/6/2006 -0800, David wrote:
    >the all-important and devilish tenor break area---the horrific, 
    >deliberately confusing end of the long bridge----aaahhhhhhh!!!!
    
    If only they'd let the tenor bridge stay closer to the middle of the board, 
    instead of trying for every last inch of speaking length, maybe it wouldn't 
    boom like that. Perhaps a case of the advertising department ruling the 
    roost, or maybe just automatic thinking (like literally saturating a block 
    with ounces of CA) instead of considering and experimenting.
    
    just my _H_ o.
    
    SSSSSSSNNNNN
    


  • 5.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 12:22
    From Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net>
    
    Susan Kline wrote:
    > At 09:47 AM 1/6/2006 -0800, David wrote:
    > 
    >> the all-important and devilish tenor break area---the horrific, 
    >> deliberately confusing end of the long bridge----aaahhhhhhh!!!!
    > 
    > 
    > If only they'd let the tenor bridge stay closer to the middle of the 
    > board, instead of trying for every last inch of speaking length, maybe 
    > it wouldn't boom like that. 
    
    Part of that boom is BECAUSE the low tenor stops too short, and too 
    far away from the rim. Most of the rest of the boom is because the 
    speaking lengths are too SHORT for the required pitch, and the 
    break% is too low. Perhaps the sacred 20 note bass wasn't such a 
    good idea here, since it moved too many long strings down onto the 
    tenor where there wasn't room for their adequate length. Lots of fun 
    interdependencies here, most cheerfully ignored by manufacturers.
    
    
    >Perhaps a case of the advertising department 
    > ruling the roost, or maybe just automatic thinking (like literally 
    > saturating a block with ounces of CA) instead of considering and 
    > experimenting.
    
    "Automatic thinking" is an oxymoron.
    
    You old grouch. You're starting to sound like me... <G>
    
    Ron N
    


  • 6.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 12:45
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    ...nor do they use ETD?s
    
    
    Bill Ballard wrote:
    
    
      Real Piano Men don't use mutes. (you know who you are.......)
    


  • 7.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 13:39
    From Avery <avery1@houston.rr.com>
    
    Don't count on it!!!!!!!!!
    
    Avery
    
    At 01:44 PM 1/6/2006, you wrote:
    >...nor do they use ETD?s
    >
    >
    >Bill Ballard wrote:
    >
    >Real Piano Men don't use mutes. (you know who you are.......)
    >
    


  • 8.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-05-2006 23:54
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    OK, I've got add something to this idea.   There are three methods of  hammer technique in this same vein...the first and less understood is "snapping"  the unison.   This is accomplished with very quick hammer movement, ala snapping...Cracking the unison is the 2nd technique as stated below...well put.   The third technique is popping the unison, where you hold the pitch above and "pop" it down into a heavenly unison.   Many technicians use all three with "snap, crackle and pop the unison"
    
    You may banish me from the List...
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 9.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 02:20
    From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>
    
    At 10:13 PM 1/5/2006 -0800, you wrote:
    >Sometimes I don't hear the 1
    >cent error, especially in upper octaves.
    
    Me either, and there, I think, lies an opportunity.
    
    Consider the "errors" which a tuning must accommodate,
    both in the tempering of intervals and in the inharmonicity
    and difficult timbre unevenness inherent in all pianos,
    especially those which are -- less than perfect.
    
    But it's all less than perfect.
    
    We can nudge everything, because there's a margin of
    error in our hearing, and in that of even our keen-eared
    customers. We can rob a little here, and put it over
    there, and (for example) get rid of that one nasty
    fourth where there's that break between the wound and
    unwound tenor. Never mind that an octave may compress
    a little, and some fast-beating intervals wouldn't
    measure up quite according to Hoyle.
    
    Be glad that we don't have to pay attention only to
    what an electronic machine tells us. Instead, we get
    to go to the source, the sound itself, and impose our
    value judgments onto it. Why do people who tune with
    an ETD do the unisons without it? Because that fudge
    factor works in our favor, giving us control of tone
    quality in a way which "exact" frequency control
    doesn't.
    
    Truth be told, I think that a lot of aural tuning,
    especially by people like Virgil, incorporates "errors"
    a lot bigger (MUCH bigger) than one cent, in the
    service of the whole musical sound.
    
    Just MHO.
    
    ssssssssnnn
    


  • 10.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 07:40
    From pianotune05@comcast.net
    
    Ok, so what exactly are we saying in this post Susan? on and on and on...:)
    Marshall 
    ps what is MHO, or is it HMO or planned provider? :)
    
    


  • 11.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 10:52
    From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>
    
    At 10:34 AM 1/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
    >Ssssnnnn: Susan wanting to take a nap  ;-)
    
    
    You've got that right! Or Susan mildly irritated, and hissing lightly. Or 
    Susan with lazy typing fingers ......
    
    
    
    sssssssssssnnnn
    


  • 12.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 08:21
    From Andrew and Rebeca  Anderson <anrebe@sbcglobal.net>
    
    Greg,
    I do this when my tuner indicates that the total 
    unison ended up flat, usually less than two 
    cents.  Much more than that and I need to break out the mutes.
    
    Andrew Anderson
    
    At 12:13 AM 1/6/2006, you wrote:
    >I'm hoping someone will take a stab at a detailed
    >definition of "Cracking The Unisons".
    >
    >I've checked the archives, and lots of people mention
    >Virgil Smith's technique, some claim to use it, only a
    >few have partially described it, and I suspect I'm
    >still not getting it.
    >
    >As I understand it:  If a three-string unison is found
    >to be slightly flat or sharp compared to a test
    >interval or two, you adjust the first string without
    >muting the other two, then adjust the remaining
    >strings to clean up the unison.
    >
    >Reasons for doing this:  It's faster than messing with
    >mutes, it produces better unisons, it avoids the
    >"Virgil Smith Phenomenon" of a unison going flat when
    >all three strings are vibrating compared to a single
    >string of the unison by itself.  (Please, let's not
    >debate the phenomenon.  I'm just asking about
    >cracking.)
    >
    >Is this all there is to the technique?  I presume the
    >hard part is being able to hear the beat clear up on
    >the 2nd string while the 3rd is still beating away,
    >akin to dealing with false beats.
    >
    >Some of the unanswered questions (in my mind):
    >
    >1.  How big an adjustment to the unison are we making
    >when using the cracking technique?  One BPS? Half a
    >beat? One beat in 15 seconds?
    >
    >2.  Do we move the 1st string to create a beat rate
    >matching the out-of-tuneness of the unacceptable test
    >interval, or is there some other method at work?  If
    >the 5th is beating about 1/2 BPS too fast, do we
    >create a 1/2 BPS unison, then move the other two
    >strings to eliminate the beat?
    >
    >3.  The single vs. three string pitch change "Virgil
    >Smith Phenomenon": How big a change are we talking
    >about?  I've read 0.1 to 0.3 cents.
    >
    >How close is "close enough"?  I know I'm not yet good
    >enough to hear some of these small errors in unison
    >tuning.  I don't know if I could tune two strings to
    >0.25 cents accuracy while the third was 1.0 cent out.
    >Heck, who am I kidding?  Sometimes I don't hear the 1
    >cent error, especially in upper octaves.  0.25 cents
    >mid keyboard is about one beat in 16 seconds, right?
    >Is that the kind of accuracy we are talking about
    >here?
    >
    >I need to see and hear this demonstrated someday, but
    >I'm hoping someone on the list who is a "crack addict"
    >can help me with a better written description.  The
    >archives need clarification, as do my unisons.
    >
    >Thanks,
    >
    >Greg Graham
    >Brodheadsville, PA
    >One tuning exam (and several months) away from
    >RPT-dom.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >__________________________________________
    >Yahoo! DSL ? Something to write home about.
    >Just $16.99/mo. or less.
    >dsl.yahoo.com
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech
    


  • 13.  Cracking the unisons

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-06-2006 08:31
    From "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
    
    I think those who use an ETD tune unisons without it because it's faster.
    That's why I tune them aurally anyway.  Though tuning unisons in the bass
    can sometimes be problematic with an ETD, I've not found any problem with
    accuracy through the rest of the piano.  In fact, I've found that it allows
    for very precise unison tuning when confronted with a noisy environment.
    And for the very high treble, an ETD for tuning unisons can be quite useful.
    
    
     
    
    > 
    > Be glad that we don't have to pay attention only to 
    > what an electronic machine tells us. Instead, we get 
    > to go to the source, the sound itself, and impose our 
    > value judgments onto it. Why do people who tune with 
    > an ETD do the unisons without it? Because that fudge 
    > factor works in our favor, giving us control of tone 
    > quality in a way which "exact" frequency control 
    > doesn't. 
    > 
    > Truth be told, I think that a lot of aural tuning, 
    > especially by people like Virgil, incorporates "errors" 
    > a lot bigger (MUCH bigger) than one cent, in the 
    > service of the whole musical sound. 
    > 
    > Just MHO. 
    > 
    > ssssssssnnn 
    > 
    > ___! ____________________________________________ 
    > pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech 
    


  • 14.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 08:34
    From "Dean May" <deanmay@pianorebuilders.com>
    
    MHO: my humble opinion
    IMHO: In my humble opinion
    YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
    DAMHIK: Don't ask me how I know
    FWIW: for what its worth
    BTW: By the way
    Ssssnnnn: Susan wanting to take a nap  ;-)
     
    There are others.
     
    Dean
    Dean May             cell 812.239.3359
    PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272
    Terre Haute IN  47802
     
    


  • 15.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:21
    From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>
    
    At 10:13 AM 1/6/2006 -0800, you wrote:
    >JWTWDSAAQUTSA!: Just write the whole damn sentence and quit using these 
    >stupid Abbreviations already!
    
    
    SIFTLTGTGBITB (Sorry, it's far too late to get that genie back in the 
    bottle ....)
    
    ssssssssssnnnn
    


  • 16.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 08:46
    From A440A@aol.com
    
    David writes:
    
    << I think those who use an ETD tune unisons without it because it's faster.<<
    
       Damn right.  Consistant unisons might sound alike, but upon closer 
    measurement, we find the three strings all over the place on certain notes.  This is 
    the "Weinreich" effect. Simply stopping all strings to the SAT will leave a 
    very inconsistant bunch of notes,(at a recording/concert level of examination).  
       I usually let the SAT tune the outer strings of a trichord, then use my 
    ear to settle all the phase requirements as I drop the middle string into the 
    mix.  It lets the organic quality of my judgement have the final say in the 
    fastest time possible. Some notes, I ignore the machine and place everything by 
    ear, since the box will occasionally get confused.   
     
    >>Though tuning unisons in the bass can sometimes be problematic with an ETD, 
    << 
    
            I agree, aural unisons in the bass are faster because you are going 
    to have to aurally check wherever the machine puts the notes, anyway!  
    
     
    >>And for the very high treble, an ETD for tuning unisons can be quite 
    useful. >>
    
    Becomes more true every year...
    
    
    
    Ed Foote RPT 
    http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
    www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
     
    


  • 17.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:13
    From "jonathan stuchell" <jstuchell@verizon.net>
    
    Kind of like being a coffee or wine taster....Sir J
    


  • 18.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:34
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Susan,
    
    There was an article in the Scientific American about how far a "unison"
    will draw. I believe it is called "The Coupled Motion of Strings" or
    something like that. The year was 1981 so I disremember the exact wording. 
    
    The conclusion was that a unison consisting of two (or more) wires on a
    moveable bridge will "draw" together and be beat free at a whopping 1 hertz
    difference. That's why unisons are the "first thing we learn" and the "last
    thing we perfect". I'm still trying to get *better* at unisons.
    
    I don't believe that an ETD that works on just one partial--or displays
    only the results from one partial or shows an "average" of several partials
    simultaneously has much chance of creating a totally magnificent unison
    that "floats on the air" and sustains -- perhaps even blossoms in fullness.
    
    In this *one* regard the old "brown box" strobe tuner is better than most
    of our modern day ETD's. It did at least display more than one partial at
    once--if you knew what to look for.
    
    
    At 10:08 AM 1/6/2006 -0800, you wrote:
    >Hello, Ed
    >
    >Weinreich effect? Any place I can find out about that? But I agree that
    >it happens, as you describe it. One can even pluck across unisons, and
    >find a different profile for some which still sound uniform with the
    >others, just listening with bare (if aging) ears.
    >
    >My feeling is that there's a lot more than just frequency for setting
    unisons,
    >since one has to make false beats (even small, slow ones) cancel each
    other in
    >a particular way for the beauty of sound to emerge. Not, perhaps, the most
    >efficient way, which sometimes causes the sound to contract and go thin and
    >white. And of course, it has to be stable.
    >
    >Just MHO (Marshall, "my HUMBLE opinion" ... i.e., if this seems arrogant,
    >it is unintended.)
    >
    >As usual, Ed, you give us a good and interesting read, which sets me to
    >thinking of various things.
    >
    >ssssssssnnn
    >
    >At 10:45 AM 1/6/2006 -0500, Ed Foote wrote:
    >>David writes:
    >>
    >><< I think those who use an ETD tune unisons without it because it's
    faster.<<
    >>
    >>    Damn right.  Consistant unisons might sound alike, but upon closer
    >>measurement, we find the three strings all over the place on certain 
    >>notes.  This is
    >>the "Weinreich" effect. Simply stopping all strings to the SAT will leave a
    >>very inconsistant bunch of notes,(at a recording/concert level of 
    >>examination).
    >>    I usually let the SAT tune the outer strings of a trichord, then use my
    >>ear to settle all the phase requirements as I drop the middle string into
    the
    >>mix.  It lets the organic quality of my judgement have the final say in the
    >>fastest time possible. Some notes, I ignore the machine and place 
    >>everything by
    >>ear, since the box will occasionally get confused.
    >>
    >> >>Though tuning unisons in the bass can sometimes be problematic with an 
    >> ETD,
    >><<
    >>
    >>         I agree, aural unisons in the bass are faster because you are going
    >>to have to aurally check wherever the machine puts the notes, anyway!
    >>
    >>
    >> >>And for the very high treble, an ETD for tuning unisons can be quite
    >>useful. >>
    >>
    >>Becomes more true every year...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Ed Foote RPT
    >
    >_______________________________________________
    >pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech
    >
    >
    >-- 
    >No virus found in this incoming message.
    >Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    >Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release Date: 1/5/2006
    >
    >
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 19.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 10:48
    From David Andersen <david@davidandersenpianos.com>
    
    > Cracking the unison was described by Virgil Smith in PTG 2/95, although for
    > him it was a very casual matter. I referred to it? as "prior art" in my 1/97
    > article, although when I first tumbled on it, it quickly took on the highly
    > aural useful technique pitch shimming. In years of conversation, I never ran
    > across anyone doing something similar. This is not to claim ownership of the
    > technique of pitch shimming (or even unison cracking), just to observe that as
    > a seemingly simple technique ready to be stumbled on by any aural tuner, it's
    > a remarkably obscure one.
    
    
    
    Hey, Bill---to me, pitch shimming is synonymous with cracking a unison:
    making micro-incremental pitch shifts in a 3 string note; I think
    experienced tuners start doing it unconsciously at some point, but it never
    really blossomed for me as a foundational tuning tool until I threw my felt
    strip away and started tuning unisons fully on the fly---open-string tuning.
    Now, 5 years later, I literally sculpt and balance the temperament by very
    fast and precise shimming of the unisons---and I can set a highly idealized,
    close-to-perfect temperament, solid as a rock, all open strings, on
    basically any piano, in 15-20 minutes.
    
    Pitch shimming is also incredibly useful as you tune down into the bottom of
    the piano, especially in the all-important and devilish tenor break
    area---the horrific, deliberately confusing end of the long
    bridge----aaahhhhhhh!!!! I scared myself.....But reallly, this a, perhaps
    the, crucial area of the piano to tune.  If you get it right, and the
    octaves are stretched just the slightest bit flat as they should be, you
    move to the bass with confidence.
    
    OK?  OK then......
    
    Best, 
    David Andersen
    


  • 20.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:25
    From william ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
    
    On Jan 6, 2006, at 12:47 PM, David Andersen wrote:
    > Hey, Bill---to me, pitch shimming is synonymous with cracking a  
    > unison:  making micro-incremental pitch shifts in a 3 string note;
    
    Agreed. Same process whether fine or coarse. I've just never used it  
    during the temperament. It's always been much more suited for  
    interval tuning (say, laying out the octaves once the temperament is  
    done), because there the task is much simpler. There's a note whose  
    turn it is to be tuned, and a note (or notes) already tuned to get  
    the pitch of the new note.
    
    Temperament is a different kettle of fish, because although the  
    chromatic steps in the temperament compass are being tuned serially,  
    the judgement as to the success of the temperament doesn't come until  
    all notes in the temperament are in place.
    
    Yeah, I know. You can make a very good case that laying out the rest  
    of the keyboard by octaves needs the "gestalt", the overall ensemble  
    of notes just as much as the central temperament. But the extent to  
    which that case is real-world instead of academic is not that great.  
    What I mean by that is you can go a lot farther in octave tuning  
    where each new note is based on only one already tuned note, than you  
    can in temperament tuning.
    
    Which is why, unless the piano is being tuned a couple of times a  
    week, when it comes temperament time, I use a temperament strip.  
    Above the temperament, it's single mute tuning. And it could be down  
    in the bass just as easily, I just have yet to try it.
    
    Your article and this thread tell me it's time to toss the strip  
    away. (On a piano that's already nearly in tune, at least.
    
    > I think experienced tuners start doing it unconsciously at some  
    > point, but it never really blossomed for me as a foundational  
    > tuning tool until I threw my felt strip away and started tuning  
    > unisons fully on the fly---open-string tuning.
    
    I'd still expect to hear of more people doing it. Like hundreds. So  
    far it's Virgil, you and me.
    
    > Now, 5 years later, I literally sculpt and balance the temperament  
    > by very fast and precise shimming of the unisons---
    
    After five years, your an old hand at it. The other thing which  
    bothers me about muteless temperament tuning, the other difference  
    between temperament and octave tuning is that, in temperament tuning,  
    setting the new note maybe based on an interval which isn't  
    necessarily being brought to pure (say a P12 or a 6:3 octave) but an  
    interval which will have a beat rate (say adjusting the new note so  
    its 5:4 beat rate as part of M3d is adjusted from x.5 bps to y bps).  
    The arithmetic behind shimming is based on erasing a beat rate  
    entirely. To move from x.5 to y, the shimming has to equal x.5-y, and  
    nothing in entire x.5 of y will tell you what x.5-y is.
    
    Of course it's by the seat of the pants, right-brained, intuitively,  
    as is alot of high end piano work. And its time for me to toss my  
    strip away.
    
    BTW, David, I like your description of sculpting a temperament very  
    much, like kneading together a landscape in clay.
    
    Cheers.
    
    Bill Ballard RPT
    NH Chapter, P.T.G.
    
    "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture"
         ...........Steve Martin
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    


  • 21.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 22:08
    From "Barbara Richmond" <piano57@insightbb.com>
    
    You're right, don't throw it away, Mr. Bill.  My "high end" concert work, ahem, almost always starts with a quick pitch correction (those are the circumstances, unfortunately) and then the strips go into the tool case.  Round two is unisons as I go--sometimes with strips and wedges, sometimes just with 2 wedge mutes.  I'm afraid I'm not a cracker... Then again, I just tune those unisons until they are as clean as possible and have never thought about what partial I'm using--or maybe it's just that I haven't thought about what partial I use in such a long time that I've forgotten.  Hmm...perhaps the left side of my brain is gone...
    
    Alan's concert hall description is very close to reality.  For those purists out there who think ETDs don't have their place in  performance situations, preparing a piano in a public concert hall is <very> different from tuning in a university recital hall (the former university tech in me speaks).  Until I got this gig, I had never set a unison using an ETD.  The thought of it still scares me a bit.  Somehow, it just seems unnatural---and as David Love said, it takes longer.  But <longer> is better than <impossible> when tuning amidst big noise.  No matter how difficult the situation is (BTW, they're not <all> awful), the final check is by ear--for my peace of mind.
    
    Barbara Richmond, RPT 
    
    
    


  • 22.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:08
    From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>
    
    Hello, Ed
    
    Weinreich effect? Any place I can find out about that? But I agree that
    it happens, as you describe it. One can even pluck across unisons, and
    find a different profile for some which still sound uniform with the
    others, just listening with bare (if aging) ears.
    
    My feeling is that there's a lot more than just frequency for setting unisons,
    since one has to make false beats (even small, slow ones) cancel each other in
    a particular way for the beauty of sound to emerge. Not, perhaps, the most
    efficient way, which sometimes causes the sound to contract and go thin and
    white. And of course, it has to be stable.
    
    I don't use the box, so this is off the top of my head, but I feel that to
    get the sound consistent and warm and round and all those good things one
    needs such a connection with the sound and its properties that one feels
    immersed in it. I don't think I'd like to share the mental space with a
    very factual widget with flashing lights or turning circles, etc. Besides,
    flashing lights make me uneasy.
    
    Just MHO (Marshall, "my HUMBLE opinion" ... i.e., if this seems arrogant,
    it is unintended.)
    
    As usual, Ed, you give us a good and interesting read, which sets me to
    thinking of various things.
    
    ssssssssnnn
    
    At 10:45 AM 1/6/2006 -0500, Ed Foote wrote:
    >David writes:
    >
    ><< I think those who use an ETD tune unisons without it because it's faster.<<
    >
    >    Damn right.  Consistant unisons might sound alike, but upon closer
    >measurement, we find the three strings all over the place on certain 
    >notes.  This is
    >the "Weinreich" effect. Simply stopping all strings to the SAT will leave a
    >very inconsistant bunch of notes,(at a recording/concert level of 
    >examination).
    >    I usually let the SAT tune the outer strings of a trichord, then use my
    >ear to settle all the phase requirements as I drop the middle string into the
    >mix.  It lets the organic quality of my judgement have the final say in the
    >fastest time possible. Some notes, I ignore the machine and place 
    >everything by
    >ear, since the box will occasionally get confused.
    >
    > >>Though tuning unisons in the bass can sometimes be problematic with an 
    > ETD,
    ><<
    >
    >         I agree, aural unisons in the bass are faster because you are going
    >to have to aurally check wherever the machine puts the notes, anyway!
    >
    >
    > >>And for the very high treble, an ETD for tuning unisons can be quite
    >useful. >>
    >
    >Becomes more true every year...
    >
    >
    >
    >Ed Foote RPT
    


  • 23.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:13
    From "pianolover 88" <pianolover88@hotmail.com>
    
    <<MHO: my humble opinion
    IMHO: In my humble opinion
    YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
    DAMHIK: Don't ask me how I know
    FWIW: for what its worth
    BTW: By the way>>
    
    
    JWTWDSAAQUTSA!: Just write the whole damn sentence and quit using these 
    stupid Abbreviations already!
    
    Terry Peterson
    
    
    
    


  • 24.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 11:31
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    >/Sometimes I don't hear the 1
    />/cent error, especially in upper octaves.
    /
    Me either, and there, I think, lies an opportunity.
    ----------------
    
    
    Good trick if you can hear a 1 cent error in the upper octaves... 
    perhaps that why the PTG test allows for a what... 25 cent (or some 
    ridiculously high number) error up there.
    
    Or perhaps I am out to lunch again :)
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    


  • 25.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 12:08
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    Interesting to hear (once again) some citing the use of high coincident
    partials for tuning unisons.  Interesting because so many techs go about
    this differently.  One thing I learned at the Yamaha Technical Acadamy
    was to listen to the lowest possible coincidents... and not really to
    just one single pair.
    
    Their idea of a clean unison... one I have come more and more to rely on
    as time has passed since my last stay there..... has to do with how long
    one can stretch out a kind of conglomerate beat rate of the most audible
    lowest coincidents.  In almost every case you can keep it from going
    full circle if you cant get it to level out perfectly.  Sometimes you
    might have to exept a kind of sideways flutter... but no full circle
    wave was ever accepted.
    
    I'll never forget the instructor when test examining thetenor andbass
    area... when ever he found a unison that he thought perhaps a bit
    unclean he would sort of reach out with his arm and hand like he was
    trying to glide on a wave.  If he heard a beat go full circle he would
    always stop and demonstrate.  With his hand he would do a dip at the
    exact point in the decay he meant the beat turned the corner as it were.
    
    When I mentioned trying to match higher partials he just smiled and
    said...no no no...thats a disturbing and unclear sidestreet,  and he
    would repeat his demonstration.  Since he was the guy giving the scores
    out... I of course had to learn to do what he wanted.
    
    I think I've begun to like that approach as I started to often find that
    if I tuned higher partials beatless then afterwards when I ran through
    my quick double checks to just listen to the overall sound of octaves,
    10ths, 12ths, and the like... I found that the character of bass unisons
    varried far too much, where as if I did what the Japanese taught me I
    had more of a consistant colour to the bass unisons.
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    


  • 26.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:02
    From "Alan Barnard" <tune4u@earthlink.net>
    
    Yes, David, that is exactly the way I understood Virgil in his class in
    Kansas City. I think a lot of us have been "tweaking" string pairs this way
    for years, but "cracking the unison" is Mr. Smith's phrase and he knows how
    to tune a piano.
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri
    
    
    > [Original Message]
    > From: David Andersen <david@davidandersenpianos.com>
    > To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
    > Date: 01/06/2006 12:44:48 AM
    > Subject: Re: Cracking the unisons
    >
    > > I'm hoping someone will take a stab at a detailed
    > > definition of "Cracking The Unisons".
    >
    > I'll take a crack at it....
    > > 
    > > I've checked the archives, and lots of people mention
    > > Virgil Smith's technique, some claim to use it, only a
    > > few have partially described it, and I suspect I'm
    > > still not getting it.
    > >   
    > > As I understand it:  If a three-string unison is found
    > > to be slightly flat or sharp compared to a test
    > > interval or two, you adjust the first string without
    > > muting the other two, then adjust the remaining
    > > strings to clean up the unison.
    >
    > Close, no cigar.  You do use a mute.  Not using one would be wacky, and
    > counterproductive.  Say you're setting the temperament---and this is
    > assuming you tune all 3 strings of a unison as you go, no felt strip---and
    > you get done, and you're playing through it, and the top note of the
    > temperament octave seems a little flat to you.  When you make your checks,
    > you confirm that it is, in fact a hair flat. Work with 2 of the 3 strings:
    > mute the left hand string, put your lever on the pin of the middle string,
    > And "crack" the 2 string, hopefully perfect unison by raising the pitch of
    > the middle string slightly---meaning just a teeny bit---just a litle
    smear,
    > a little phasing, no beat speed at all. Then pull the right string up to
    it,
    > and check it with your checks.  If it feels/sounds good, and checks
    out,take
    > the mute out and pull up the left string, then check again. Bingo.
    >
    > As you practice, you get quicker and quicker at this, and your tunings
    take
    > on a greater and greater level of precision, which mean they sound better.
    >
    > IMO, mastering this skill is crucial for high-end work, really fine
    tuning.
    >
    > Good luck, Greg. Keep on working, trust your body.
    >
    > David Andersen
    > Malibu CA
    >
    > P.S. If you can get hold of a November 2005 Journal, I have an article in
    it
    > about open-string tuning which describes the process.
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech
    


  • 27.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:04
    From "Alan Barnard" <tune4u@earthlink.net>
    
    I'd be happy to comment on this heresy if I understood it. Let me just say,
    "Huh?"  
    
    Describe Snap and Pop, please.
    
    BTW, do you know how you can tell your breakfast cereal is stale? It goes
    snab, crabble, bah.
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri
    
    
    > [Original Message]
    > From: David Ilvedson <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    > To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
    > Date: 01/06/2006 12:54:00 AM
    > Subject: RE: Cracking the unisons
    >
    > OK, I've got add something to this idea.   There are three methods of 
    hammer technique in this same vein...the first and less understood is
    "snapping"  the unison.   This is accomplished with very quick hammer
    movement, ala snapping...Cracking the unison is the 2nd technique as stated
    below...well put.   The third technique is popping the unison, where you
    hold the pitch above and "pop" it down into a heavenly unison.   Many
    technicians use all three with "snap, crackle and pop the unison"
    >
    > You may banish me from the List...
    >
    > David Ilvedson, RPT
    > Pacifica, California
    >
    >
    >
    > 


  • 28.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:08
    From "pianolover 88" <pianolover88@hotmail.com>
    
    <<..nor do they use ETD?s
    
    
    Bill Ballard wrote:
    
    
       Real Piano Men don't use mutes. (you know who you are.......)
    
    
    
    >>
    
    
    "Real Men" also don't make such sophomoric, completely rediculous assertions 
    (you know who you are too!) Sounds like I'm mad don' tit? Nope. It's soooo 
    easy to misinterprit the intentions of such postings; But if you're gonna 
    dish it out, ya gotta be big enough to take it too. Cheers!
    
    Oh, oh, and real men don't eat Quiche! Remember that one?
    
    Terry Peterson
    
    
    
    


  • 29.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:57
    From william ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
    
    On Jan 6, 2006, at 4:07 PM, pianolover 88 wrote:
    > "Real Men" also don't make such sophomoric, completely rediculous  
    > assertions (you know who you are too!) Sounds like I'm mad don'  
    > tit? Nope. It's soooo easy to misinterprit the intentions of such  
    > postings; But if you're gonna dish it out, ya gotta be big enough  
    > to take it too. Cheers!
    
    I'm glad your only kidding, because I was too. Real Piano Men was a  
    column I wrote for the NH Chapter's "Granite Action" twenty years  
    ago. All real stuff that separated us duffers and wannabes from the  
    heavies
    
    Lock'n'load Baby!
    
    Mr. Bill
    


  • 30.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:23
    From "Alan Barnard" <tune4u@earthlink.net>
    
    Ric said: "...One thing I learned at the Yamaha Technical Acadamy was to
    listen to the lowest possible coincidents... and not really to just one
    single pair."
    
    I grew up with that, too: always tune to the lowest pitch, slowest beating
    partial you can hear. and is absolutely correct for tuning fifths
    (critically important) and other intervals ... but not octaves, obviously,
    where we are aiming for a particular stretch (don't let the word confuse
    you).
    
    BUT it is also not the best idea for tuning unisons. For example, bass
    unisons could be tuned to ensure no-beat at the octave and yet end up with
    an ugly beat at the 12th unless the strings are perfectly matched (is that
    possible). Even with badly mismatched bass strings, your best unison is
    almost always found where the 12th (octave + fifth) is quietest. This is
    handy, too, because it can be easily ghosted to isolate this partial when
    there is a lot of junk in the strings when they are played directly.
    
    Every user of Tunelab is aware of how often high treble strings have two or
    more "peaks" on the spectrum analyzer--some are just a jumble of pitches in
    the general neighborhood of the tuned pitch. So, for treble unisons, as
    someone mentioned today, they must be tuned strictly by ear and strictly to
    find the "sweetest" possible coincidence of partials even if the
    fundamental is not exactly the same, especially when they are are noisy
    strings--by which, I do not mean "wild" strings, that's a separate issue, I
    just mean strings that do not produce one clear pitch. 
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri
    


  • 31.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 14:26
    From "Alan Barnard" <tune4u@earthlink.net>
    
    Yes they do! And just as soon as I finish hemming these curtains and eating my spinach quiche I'm going to come right over there and wag my finger at you. You, you, big meany, you.
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri
    
    
    


  • 32.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 15:44
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    No they don?t and there are good physical reasons why they don?t. (You will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is allowed to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing to do with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology. 
    Most modern ETD?s are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for pitch calculation. 
    Be sure, the he ear has no FFT transformator... There is a big difference in what you get measured and what you hear.
    In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    This is true for a signal that would not float in pitch over more than 2 or 3 seconds to catch enough samples at the current possible samplerates. Piano sounds are a really nonlinear matter that can float in pitch up to some Hz over a second, when strucked firm. By transforming a signal from the time domain into the frequency domain with the desired accuracy (what most ETD?s do), you loose the information when a singal passes exactly what frequency at what time. Tuning with an ETD makes it necessary to tune at low volume levels (Pitch float is less at low volume levels). A good aural tuner tune with a firm struck, to catch also the transient phase of the sound at higher volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the left pedal, it leaves the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may happen, that the pianist also use volumes above mp...
    
    Bernhard Stopper
    
    
    Qui habet aures audiendi audiat
    
    
      


  • 33.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:30
    From Andrew and Rebeca  Anderson <anrebe@sbcglobal.net>
    
    Mr. Stopper,
    I agree and disagree.  A particularly agreeable 
    old Knabe I tuned had a long attack phase that 
    rose five cents or more.  It was blessedly slow 
    to tune too.  I too check tuning over several 
    volume ranges.  The difference, I use a Verituner 
    that samples over a period of time, measuring and 
    remeasuring a note until it has collected 
    inharmonicity info that does not all occur at once.
    Not all boxes are made the same.  I check my 
    concert tunings aurally independent of the box 
    after having put the piano in correct pitch 
    solidly with the box.  Not much tampering after that. ;-)
    
    Andrew C. Anderson
    
    At 04:43 PM 1/6/2006, you wrote:
    >No they don?t and there are good physical 
    >reasons why they don?t. (You will find not one 
    >tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is 
    >allowed to service concerts with an ETD for 
    >example). This has nothing to do with 
    >traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
    >Most modern ETD?s are doing fast fourier 
    >transformation (FFT) for pitch calculation.
    >Be sure, the he ear has no FFT transformator... 
    >There is a big difference in what you get measured and what you hear.
    >In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    >This is true for a signal that would not float 
    >in pitch over more than 2 or 3 seconds to catch 
    >enough samples at the current possible 
    >samplerates. Piano sounds are a really nonlinear 
    >matter that can float in pitch up to some Hz 
    >over a second, when strucked firm. By 
    >transforming a signal from the time domain into 
    >the frequency domain with the desired accuracy 
    >(what most ETD?s do), you loose the information 
    >when a singal passes exactly what frequency at 
    >what time. Tuning with an ETD makes it necessary 
    >to tune at low volume levels (Pitch float is 
    >less at low volume levels). A good aural tuner 
    >tune with a firm struck, to catch also the 
    >transient phase of the sound at higher volumes. 
    >Low volume tuning is like not voicing the left 
    >pedal, it leaves the transient phase untuned. 
    >But sometimes it may happen, that the pianist also use volumes above mp...
    >
    >Bernhard Stopper
    >
    >
    >Qui habet aures audiendi audiat
    >
    >
    >


  • 34.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:03
    From Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net>
    
    > No they don?t and there are good physical reasons why they don?t. (You 
    > will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is allowed 
    > to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing to do 
    > with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
    > Most modern ETD?s are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for pitch 
    > calculation.
    
    Oh, really? The only one I know of using FFT for anything is 
    Tunelab, for the spectrum display (and perhaps unison 
    determination). Pitch matching is done with an entirely different 
    algorithm. I've put in a fair amount of time writing code and 
    exploring DSP pitch detection methods, and real world pitch 
    detection is tough. A pure tone can be measured accurately with an 
    FFT phase angle, but if there is a way to measure a piano tone 
    partial accurately in real time (or at all, for that matter) with 
    FFT, I'd sure like to know the method.
    
    Ron N
    


  • 35.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 18:45
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    Tunelab and Verituner use both FFT as pre anaylsis.
    Every box has its own procedure by mangling the partials to calculate a 
    virtual overall pitch,
    but the exact realtime float cannot be caught that way with todays sample 
    rates.
    Cybertuner uses counting of cero crossings of filtered signal, needs also 
    means over a longer time period.
    (see patent papers)
    
    > FFT phase angle, but if there is a way to measure a piano tone partial 
    > accurately in real time (or at all, for that matter) with FFT, I'd sure 
    > like to know the method.
    
    there is actually no, that?s what i said.
    
    regards,
    
    Bernhard
    
    


  • 36.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:47
    From Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net>
    
    > Tunelab and Verituner use both FFT as pre anaylsis.
    
    Pre-analysis is not pitch determination. The actual tuning is done 
    with different algorithms. I think that's what I said, if I'm not 
    mistaken. I'm sure you'll correct me if I am.
    
    
    > Every box has its own procedure by mangling the partials to calculate a 
    > virtual overall pitch,
    > but the exact realtime float cannot be caught that way with todays 
    > sample rates.
    
    Sample rates have barely a damn thing to do with it. The FFT, by 
    itself, is not capable of a fine enough resolution for tuning, given 
    the noisy signal of a piano tone.
    
    
    > Cybertuner uses counting of cero crossings of filtered signal, needs 
    > also means over a longer time period.
    > (see patent papers)
    
    As do all of the ETDs, as far as I know (filtered or otherwise). 
    This, again hasn't a bloody thing to do with the FFT.
    
    
    >> FFT phase angle, but if there is a way to measure a piano tone partial 
    >> accurately in real time (or at all, for that matter) with FFT, I'd 
    >> sure like to know the method.
    > 
    > 
    > there is actually no, that?s what i said.
    
    It is? I must be reading a different language that you're writing 
    then. Sorry, I seem to have missed it altogether. Surely my fault, 
    as I'm sure you'd agree.
    
    Awaiting enlightenment,
    Ron N
    


  • 37.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:29
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    /Ric said: "...One thing I learned at the Yamaha Technical Acadamy was to
    listen to the lowest possible coincidents... and not really to just one
    single pair."
    
    I grew up with that, too: always tune to the lowest pitch, slowest beating
    partial you can hear. and is absolutely correct for tuning fifths
    (critically important) and other intervals ... but not octaves, obviously,
    where we are aiming for a particular stretch (don't let the word confuse
    you)./
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I'm not quite sure you understood what I wrote there Alan. I didnt say 
    listen for thee absolute lowest unison pairs..... I said a more or less 
    congomerate of the lowest partials more specifically the fundemental, 
    2nd and 3rd.  And its only for tuning unisons that I made the reference. 
    Low tenor and bass octaves are tuned using 4:2 and 6:3 tests at the 
    acadamy.. and they place heavy weight on the 4:2 even for long pianos.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    /BUT it is also not the best idea for tuning unisons. For example, bass
    unisons could be tuned to ensure no-beat at the octave and yet end up with
    an ugly beat at the 12th unless the strings are perfectly matched (is that
    possible). Even with badly mismatched bass strings, your best unison is
    almost always found where the 12th (octave + fifth) is quietest. This is
    handy, too, because it can be easily ghosted to isolate this partial when
    there is a lot of junk in the strings when they are played directly./
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I must respectfully disagree. The 3rd partial match in unisons is far 
    from always satisfactory.  Para-inharmonicity as some call it simply 
    does not allow for any such generalization to work. NIMBA. This is one 
    of my beefs with earblind use of ETD's... tho that moves into a 
    discussion about octaves again.  But for unisons... the best result is 
    when the oveall sound of the unison is a steady as possible. No single 
    partial alone can define that criteria
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    /Every user of Tunelab is aware of how often high treble strings have two or
    more "peaks" on the spectrum analyzer--some are just a jumble of pitches in
    the general neighborhood of the tuned pitch. So, for treble unisons, as
    someone mentioned today, they must be tuned strictly by ear and strictly to
    find the "sweetest" possible coincidence of partials even if the
    fundamental is not exactly the same, especially when they are are noisy
    strings--by which, I do not mean "wild" strings, that's a separate issue, I
    just mean strings that do not produce one clear pitch.
    
    /----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The sometimes undefined treble fundemental pitch is a whole different 
    issue of course.
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    /Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri/
    
    
    
        * Previous message: Weinreich effects
    


  • 38.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:36
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    Hey Bernard !
    
    Whats this I hear about a tune-off between you and the Tunelab guy down 
    on the continent ? The word I got was that a group of tuners judged 
    between the two and Tunelab won hands down no bones about it ?  Being 
    skeptical of such arrangements from the get go I asked about what tuning 
    you used... judging criteria.. ect ect.. but I havent really heard back 
    from the fellow.  Would you care to tell us the real story ?
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    
    ------------------------------
    Bernard Stopper writes:
    
    No they dont and there are good physical reasons why they dont.
    (You will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is
    allowed to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing
    to do with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
    Most modern ETDB4s are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for
    pitch calculation.
    Be sure, the he ear has no FFT transformator... There is a big
    difference in what you get measured and what you hear.
    In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    This is true for a signal that would not float in pitch over more than 2
    or 3 seconds to catch enough samples at the current possible
    samplerates. Piano sounds are a really nonlinear matter that can float
    in pitch up to some Hz over a second, when strucked firm. By
    transforming a signal from the time domain into the frequency domain
    with the desired accuracy (what most ETDB4s do), you loose the
    information when a singal passes exactly what frequency at what time.
    Tuning with an ETD makes it necessary to tune at low volume levels
    (Pitch float is less at low volume levels). A good aural tuner tune with
    a firm struck, to catch also the transient phase of the sound at higher
    volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the left pedal, it leaves
    the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may happen, that the
    pianist also use volumes above mp...
    
    Bernhard Stopper
    
    
    Qui habet aures audiendi audiat
    


  • 39.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:40
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    Hi Ric,
    
    yes, there was a contest at the BDK convention between aural tunnig (done by 
    me) and a Tunelab tuning done by Wolfgang Wiese
    (european Tunelab distributor).
    
    Shortly said, the Tunelab tunig won the race with the votes for the aural 
    tuning.
    
    The explanation:
    
    The left piano was named "Piano B" and was tuned with the help of Tunelab.
    The right piano was named "Piano A" and was tuned by me aurally (Onlypure 
    method, Pure 12th tempereament)
    
    30 votes were given by piano tuners, who did not know what piano was tuned 
    in what manner.
    Unfortunately they get a paper with two columns, with the left column named 
    "Piano A" and the right column "Piano B"
    There were 5 criteria:
    Unisons, temperament, bass stretch, treble stretch, and overall impression, 
    for every criterium on could to vote for one or the other instrument.
    
    Paul St?ckle, long years chief of of the european Fazioli distributor Piano 
    Fischer in Stuttgart, referated immediately after the contest, and without 
    knowing who tuned what piano, he immediately stated that he immediately had 
    recognized the aural tuning as the piano on the right side, and that it 
    sounds far better than the other one.
    
    After counting the votes, The ETD had won with about 60 % to 40 % . This 
    result was publisehd immediately after the voting and shocking also for 
    St?ckle.
    
    So far so bad.
    
    Having analyzed the votes later showed, that 1/3 of the votes have seen that 
    they have voted for the wrong instrument, and remarked the columns. From 
    this votes (who have seen that the columns of the vote paper is is different 
    from the piano standing), the aural tuning get about 80%  for overall 
    impression, unisons, bass stretch and treble stretch. The temperament was 
    voted about 60 / 40 for the ETD. (The temperament was really difficult to 
    stabilize in my arual tuning, but later i was told that the piano i had to 
    tune, was used before for a seminar with Reyburn?s Impact lever seminar, 
    where the newbies turned the tuning pin up around a half tone.)
    
    The other 2/3 of the votes have not remarked, that the piano standing was 
    different to the voting paper columns and had a result in the complete other 
    tendency that means the same tendency of 80/ 20 for treble stretch, bass 
    stretch, overall impression and unsisons for the other piano, and 60 / 40 
    for the temperament but for the ETD, i.e the ETD tuning probably profited 
    from the aural votes in that case.
    
    Finally said, a 80/20 result for the aural tuning was turned into 60 / 40 
    for the ETD due to this mistake.
    
    In later discussions, all professionals stated, that the aural tuning on the 
    right sided Piano A was far better than the ETD tuning. (Also the pianist 
    Ragna Schirmer preferred the aural tuned piano at the concert she gave the 
    evening)
    
    So a revanche is neeeded with avoiding such mistakes. Would be interesting 
    to make a contest with the Verituner.
    
    regards,
    
    Bernhard
    
    
    


  • 40.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 19:32
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Bernard,
    
    The accutuner, so I am told, does not use this method of pitch
    measurement.(FFT)
    
    Why do you believe that "firm blow" tuning is less accurate than "soft
    tuning"?
    
    At least one technician I know listens to the very beginnings of the
    sound--and uses the information his ear (or tuning device?) gathers during
    this "prompt" phase to tune the piano.
    
    As to accuracy it is 0.015 not 0.1 of a cent.
    
    
    At 01:40 AM 1/7/2006 +0100, you wrote:
    >Most?modern ETD?s are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT)?for pitch 
    >calculation.
    
    >A good?aural tuner tune with a firm struck,?to catch also the transient
    phase 
    >of the sound at higher volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the 
    >left pedal, it leaves?the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may 
    >happen, that the pianist also use volumes above mp...
    
    >In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    
    
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 41.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 18:51
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    Hi Don,
    
    > Why do you believe that "firm blow" tuning is less accurate than "soft
    > tuning"?
    
    read again, i stated the opposite.
    
    > The accutuner, so I am told, does not use this method of pitch
    > measurement.(FFT)
    
    yes, the accutuner counts cero crossings like the Cybertuner, but also over 
    a period of time, i.e. the same problem as with FFT.
    
    regards,
    
    Bernhard
    
    


  • 42.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 19:48
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi David,
    
    I'm a "reformed" action part breaker myself.(grin) There are times to play
    with some energy when tuning--but only when it is not a concert level
    situation. (i.e. no note out more than 2 cents)
    
    Do what ever works!!! (that is without having hammer assemblys whistle by
    your ears)
    
    At 05:41 PM 1/6/2006 -0800, you wrote:
    >I find the soft blow more accurate when listening, the firm blow better for
    >stability.  For me the process requires a mixture of both:  Tune firm, check
    >soft.  
    >
    >David Love
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 43.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:01
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Bernard,
    
    Perhaps then you could explain this quote (taken out of context) from your
    original post? It certain "reads" to me as if you think "firm blow" is
    required (or at least preferred).
    
    >A good aural tuner tune with a firm struck, to catch also the transient
    phase 
    >of the sound at higher volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the 
    >left pedal, it leaves the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may 
    >happen, that the pianist also use volumes above mp...
      
    Bernhard Stopper
    
    
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 44.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 19:38
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    >Hi Bernard,
    
    >What are "cero" crossings?
    
    Cero crossings are the points where the amplitude of the signal crosses the 
    cero level, i.e. from positive amplitude to negative and vice versa. By 
    counting this crossings, one can reconstruct the frequency of the measured 
    partial of the signal by dividing the sample rate with the amount of samples 
    between two crossings. Requires filtering of the signal before, that no 
    other partial produce another cero crossing.
    
    regards,
    
    Bernhard
    
    
    


  • 45.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:03
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Bernard,
    
    What are "cero" crossings?
    
    At 02:51 AM 1/7/2006 +0100, you wrote:
    
    >counts cero crossings
    >Bernhard
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 46.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 19:30
    From "Cy Shuster" <741662027@theshusters.org>
    
    He probably means "zero crossings": when the amplitude of the wave changes 
    sign from + to - and back again.
    
    --Cy--
    
    


  • 47.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 19:42
    From b98tu@t-online.de
    
    yes, shame on me, actually i?m thinking all in C (C#, a programming language 
    in which i work for the Mensurix program)
    
    regards,
    
    Bernhard
    
    


  • 48.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:46
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    Hi again Bernard
    
    I have to agree about your comments relative to the transient phase of sound. 
    Any tunelab probably has noticed more then once the ofte times variant course of 
    pitch development in individual unison strings. This is one of my other beefs 
    with the earblind use of ETD's. You can actually see exactly what Bernhard is 
    refering to very easily on the Tunelab display. It underlines the need to keep 
    your ears open and ready to decide.
    
    That said...  judicial use of an ETD as an aid in getting your ears satisfied is 
    a great asset to any tuners skills. That Steinways official policy is no ETD is 
    another matter entirely. And even they are getting ready to back off on the ETD 
    question.
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    
    ------------------------------
    Bernard Stopper writes:
    
    No they dont and there are good physical reasons why they dont.
    (You will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is
    allowed to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing
    to do with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
    Most modern ETDs are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for
    pitch calculation.
    Be sure, the he ear has no FFT transformator... There is a big
    difference in what you get measured and what you hear.
    In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    This is true for a signal that would not float in pitch over more than 2
    or 3 seconds to catch enough samples at the current possible
    samplerates. Piano sounds are a really nonlinear matter that can float
    in pitch up to some Hz over a second, when strucked firm. By
    transforming a signal from the time domain into the frequency domain
    with the desired accuracy (what most ETDs do), you loose the
    information when a singal passes exactly what frequency at what time.
    Tuning with an ETD makes it necessary to tune at low volume levels
    (Pitch float is less at low volume levels). A good aural tuner tune with
    a firm struck, to catch also the transient phase of the sound at higher
    volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the left pedal, it leaves
    the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may happen, that the
    pianist also use volumes above mp...
    
    Bernhard Stopper
    
    
    Qui habet aures audiendi audiat
    


  • 49.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:51
      |   view attached
    From antares <antares@euronet.nl>
    
    On 7-jan-2006, at 0:46, Ric Brekne wrote:
    
    > That said...  judicial use of an ETD as an aid in getting your ears  
    > satisfied is a great asset to any tuners skills. That Steinways  
    > official policy is no ETD is another matter entirely. And even they  
    > are getting ready to back off on the ETD question.
    >
    
    Steinway in Holland has bought a number of ETD's for their tuning  
    personnel.
    I happen to know this for certain.
    
    Just so you know.....
    
    grrrrrrr
    
    
    friendly greetings
    from
    André Oorebeek
    
    R. Vinkeleskade 1-3hg
    1071 SN Amsterdam
    The Netherlands
    
    tel/fax : 0031-20-6237357
    gsm   :  0031-645-492389
    
    www.concertpianoservice.nl
    
    
    ?
    and the stories I hear!
    


  • 50.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 16:57
    From "Alan Barnard" <tune4u@earthlink.net>
    
    I can see the scene where the D on stage is being tuned at the last minute
    because it arrived late, and meanwhile the lighting guys are yacking and
    dragging cables around, someone is repairing the conductor's stand with an
    electric drill, orchestra members are arriving, unpacking their
    instruments, and talking and tuning and tweaking their reeds, and the stage
    manager is walking through on a cell phone and the C&A guy has a bad cold
    with stuffy ears and says to Hell with it as he stealthily slips his
    iPod/Tunlab out of his shirt pocket, snickering all the while ... and tunes
    the piano.
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri
    
    
    > [Original Message]
    > From: Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    > To: pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
    > Date: 01/06/2006 7:50:37 PM
    > Subject: Cracking the unisons
    >
    >> That said...  judicial use of an ETD as an aid in getting your ears
    satisfied is 
    > a great asset to any tuners skills. That Steinways official policy is no
    ETD is 
    > another matter entirely. And even they are getting ready to back off on
    the ETD 
    > question.
    >
    > Cheers
    > RicB
    >
    >
    


  • 51.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:00
    From antares <antares@euronet.nl>
    
    On 7-jan-2006, at 0:56, Alan Barnard wrote:
    
    > I can see the scene where the D on stage is being tuned at the last  
    > minute
    > because it arrived late, and meanwhile the lighting guys are  
    > yacking and
    > dragging cables around, someone is repairing the conductor's stand  
    > with an
    > electric drill, orchestra members are arriving, unpacking their
    > instruments, and talking and tuning and tweaking their reeds, and  
    > the stage
    > manager is walking through on a cell phone and the C&A guy has a  
    > bad cold
    > with stuffy ears and says to Hell with it as he stealthily slips his
    > iPod/Tunlab out of his shirt pocket, snickering all the while ...  
    > and tunes
    > the piano.
    >
    > Alan Barnard
    > Salem, Missouri
    
    
    Exactly, and this is already very old news.......
    
    friendly greetings
    from
    Andr? Oorebeek
    


  • 52.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:01
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    I can see this too, and am more then willing to meet you more then half 
    way down that road. That said however... the resulting tuning from the 
    scenario below... constrained time and too much noise....  will result 
    in an inferior tuning... however acceptable.  Misunderstand me 
    correctly.... :)
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    
    -------------------------
    /I can see the scene where the D on stage is being tuned at the last minute
    because it arrived late, and meanwhile the lighting guys are yacking and
    dragging cables around, someone is repairing the conductor's stand with an
    electric drill, orchestra members are arriving, unpacking their
    instruments, and talking and tuning and tweaking their reeds, and the stage
    manager is walking through on a cell phone and the C&A guy has a bad cold
    with stuffy ears and says to Hell with it as he stealthily slips his
    iPod/Tunlab out of his shirt pocket, snickering all the while ... and tunes
    the piano.
    
    Alan Barnard
    Salem, Missouri/
    


  • 53.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:08
      |   view attached
    From antares <antares@euronet.nl>
    
    It depends on the 'force' being with you.....
    
    besides, real men eat Guiche, did you know that?
    
    EAR
    
    
    
    On 7-jan-2006, at 1:01, Ric Brekne wrote:
    
    > I can see this too, and am more then willing to meet you more then  
    > half way down that road. That said however... the resulting tuning  
    > from the scenario below... constrained time and too much noise....   
    > will result in an inferior tuning... however acceptable.   
    > Misunderstand me correctly.... :)
    >
    > Cheers
    > RicB
    >
    > -------------------------
    > /I can see the scene where the D on stage is being tuned at the  
    > last minute
    > because it arrived late, and meanwhile the lighting guys are  
    > yacking and
    > dragging cables around, someone is repairing the conductor's stand  
    > with an
    > electric drill, orchestra members are arriving, unpacking their
    > instruments, and talking and tuning and tweaking their reeds, and  
    > the stage
    > manager is walking through on a cell phone and the C&A guy has a  
    > bad cold
    > with stuffy ears and says to Hell with it as he stealthily slips his
    > iPod/Tunlab out of his shirt pocket, snickering all the while ...  
    > and tunes
    > the piano.
    >
    > Alan Barnard
    > Salem, Missouri/
    > _______________________________________________
    > pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech
    >
    
    friendly greetings
    from
    Andr? Oorebeek
    
    R. Vinkeleskade 1-3hg
    1071 SN Amsterdam
    The Netherlands
    
    tel/fax : 0031-20-6237357
    gsm   :  0031-645-492389
    
    www.concertpianoservice.nl
    


  • 54.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 17:37
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    For anyone wondering what DSP means, it stands for Digital Signal 
    processing and can be used at present (as far as I understand) to 
    usefully find only single frequencies at a time. Please see the 
    following article.
    
    http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~kperdue/MusicalDSP.html
    
     Essentially one needs to examine the total wave form of a tone closely 
    enough so as to be able to establish its period. Which of course only 
    yeilds the fundemental. In order to find multiple frequencies of complex 
    tones like the sound of a piano, a FFT is needed. So if the ETD's that 
    are out there today do not use FFT's in calculation of the partials 
    ladders or for measuring coincidence of any but the fundemental with the 
    target frequency... I'd be very interested in seeing how.  
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    
    
    --------------------------------
    /
     > No they don?t and there are good physical reasons why they don?t. (You
     > will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is allowed
     > to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing to do
     > with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
     > Most modern ETD?s are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for pitch
     > calculation.
    
    Oh, really? The only one I know of using FFT for anything is
    Tunelab, for the spectrum display (and perhaps unison
    determination). Pitch matching is done with an entirely different
    algorithm. I've put in a fair amount of time writing code and
    exploring DSP pitch detection methods, and real world pitch
    detection is tough. A pure tone can be measured accurately with an
    FFT phase angle, but if there is a way to measure a piano tone
    partial accurately in real time (or at all, for that matter) with
    FFT, I'd sure like to know the method.
    
    Ron N/
    


  • 55.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 18:04
    From "pianolover 88" <pianolover88@hotmail.com>
    
    Hey, you forgot my "real men don't eat quiche" tag!
    Cheers!
    
    Terry Peterson
    
    
    
    


  • 56.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:50
    From william ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
    
    On Jan 6, 2006, at 8:04 PM, pianolover 88 wrote:
    > Hey, you forgot my "real men don't eat quiche" tag!
    > Cheers!
    
    "Montana. Where Men are Men and the women are sheep"
    
    Oh please, Big Nurse.... yes anything you want, I promise.. just  
    don't come at me with those electrodes.
    
    Mr. Bill
    


  • 57.  Cracking the unisons

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-06-2006 18:41
    From "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
    
    I find the soft blow more accurate when listening, the firm blow better for
    stability.  For me the process requires a mixture of both:  Tune firm, check
    soft.  
    
    David Love
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
    
    


  • 58.  Cracking the unisons

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-06-2006 18:59
    From "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
    
    I said "firm" not abusive.  
    
    David Love
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
    
    


  • 59.  Cracking the unisons

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-06-2006 20:27
    From "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
    
    I'll bet that speeds up a tuning.
    
    David Love
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
    
    


  • 60.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:47
    From william ballard <yardbird@vermontel.net>
    
    On Jan 6, 2006, at 10:27 PM, David Love wrote:
    > I'll bet that speeds up a tuning.
    
    In setting A440 from the fork, you'll want to count several thousand  
    zero crossings, just to have a good statistical sample. One doesn't  
    get to choose between doing it well or doing it fast: if you're not  
    counting fast enough, you're not doing it well. <g>
    
    Mr. Bill
    


  • 61.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 01:01
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Bill,
    
    A440 I guess would give 880 "zeros" per second?
    
    At 10:46 PM 1/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
    >In setting A440 from the fork, you'll want to count several thousand zero 
    >crossings, just to have a good statistical sample. One doesn't get to choose 
    >between doing it well or doing it fast: if you're not counting fast enough, 
    >you're not doing it well. <g>
    
    >Mr. Bill
    
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner
    


  • 62.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:31
    From pianotune05@comcast.net
    
    What is everyone's take on Virgil Smith's method of cracking the unisons.  I've been taught this from my instructor in Chicago, but fumbling with mutes is slowing me down I think.  OH , I know it's no big deal to you guys,  but my tuning lever arrived today.  
    Marshall
    
    


  • 63.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:40
    From pianotune05@comcast.net
    
    c# c sharp, 
    Bb b flat 
    I've seen this abbreviation , BBW somewhere.
    Marshall
    


  • 64.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:51
    From pianotune05@comcast.net
    
    I enjoy the cracking the unison method.  As I mentioned, fumbling with the mutes is my only headache.  Before, I was having trouble inserting the felt in the trebble because the hammers would go thunk thunk thunk when I plaid notes in that trebble.  In the bass, it was a pian because I had trouble destinguishing visually the break between each note. The two fat string notes were too close , and pushing in the felt always muffled the string.  When my instructor an RPT of course whom I found through the PTG, taugh me this method, I don't desire any other tuning method.  Now I have temperment strips here I can use for action repairs etc, when the time comes for me to acquire that skill.  I'm loving piano tuning and the life long journey of learning this trade.  We never stop learning.  Anyone who thinks they've arrived nees to take a look. They're probably at the wrong destination.  :)
    Marshall
    
    


  • 65.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 20:58
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    Do I really have to?
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 66.  Cracking the unisons

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 01-06-2006 21:04
    From "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
    
    I thought it was, " .and the sheep run scared."
    
     
    
    David Love
    davidlovepianos@comcast.net 
    
    


  • 67.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:08
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    That, being my birth month, is the time when I do all my voicing...
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 68.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:11
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    This sure sounds like Virgil Smith's "whole tone" tunings...
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 69.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:12
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    I think 6 to 8 cents...?
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 70.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:17
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    I remember at the "Little Red School House", when LaRoy pulled up a bass string in a unison at the agraffe and cleaned up a unison.   I do that first all the time when I come across one funky string in a unison...it don't always work though.......;-[
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    


  • 71.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-06-2006 21:18
    From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
    
    So David, when are you go to demonstrate this at a convention...?
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Original message
    From: "David Andersen"
    To: Pianotech
    Received: 1/6/2006 9:47:57 AM
    Subject: Re: Cracking the unisons
    
    
    Cracking the unison was described by Virgil Smith in PTG 2/95, although for him it was a very casual matter. I referred to it  as "prior art" in my 1/97 article, although when I first tumbled on it, it quickly took on the highly aural useful technique pitch shimming. In years of conversation, I never ran across anyone doing something similar. This is not to claim ownership of the technique of pitch shimming (or even unison cracking), just to observe that as a seemingly simple technique ready to be stumbled on by any aural tuner, it's a remarkably obscure one.
    
    
    
    
    Hey, Bill---to me, pitch shimming is synonymous with cracking a unison:  making micro-incremental pitch shifts in a 3 string note; I think experienced tuners start doing it unconsciously at some point, but it never really blossomed for me as a foundational tuning tool until I threw my felt strip away and started tuning unisons fully on the fly---open-string tuning.  Now, 5 years later, I literally sculpt and balance the temperament by very fast and precise shimming of the unisons---and I can set a highly idealized, close-to-perfect temperament, solid as a rock, all open strings, on basically any piano, in 15-20 minutes.
    
    Pitch shimming is also incredibly useful as you tune down into the bottom of the piano, especially in the all-important and devilish tenor break area---the horrific, deliberately confusing end of the long bridge----aaahhhhhhh!!!! I scared myself.....But reallly, this a, perhaps the, crucial area of the piano to tune.  If you get it right, and the octaves are stretched just the slightest bit flat as they should be, you move to the bass with confidence.
    
    OK?  OK then......
    
    Best,
    David Andersen
    


  • 72.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 05:32
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    Hi David
    That thought has crossed my mind on more then one occasion as well.  Tho 
    Virgil uses this kind of description in relation to his <<beatless 
    octaves>>.  Still... the wholistic aspect of the perspective strikes me 
    as much the same.
    
    Cheers
    RicB
    
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    This sure sounds like Virgil Smith's "whole tone" tunings...
    
    David Ilvedson, RPT
    Pacifica, California
    
     >Their idea of a clean unison... one I have come more and more to rely on
     >as time has passed since my last stay there..... has to do with how long
     >one can stretch out a kind of conglomerate beat rate of the most audible
     >lowest coincidents.  In almost every case you can keep it from going
     >full circle if you cant get it to level out perfectly.  Sometimes you
     >might have to exept a kind of sideways flutter... but no full circle
     >wave was ever accepted.
    


  • 73.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 05:50
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    I reprint Bernhards origional statement on the matter.  I personally 
    dont see how it could be interpreted any other way then what he restates 
    immediately below.  Bernhard is amoung other things, a person who 
    actually has published software programs dealing with similiar issues.
    
    This said... I think its time for Robert Scott to get on this thread and 
    clear up this FFT bit.  A good generalized description of the basic 
    pitch determination routines for the SAT, Cybertuner, Verituner, and 
    Tunelab.  And if FFT is an intergral part... then it is period... even 
    if one uses other approaches to finding the period of a given fundemental.
    
    
    -------------------------------------
     >> but if there is a way to measure a piano tone partial
     >> accurately in real time (or at all, for that matter) with FFT, I'd
     >> sure like to know the method.
     >
     >
     > there is actually no, that?s what i said.
    
    It is? I must be reading a different language that you're writing
    then. Sorry, I seem to have missed it altogether. Surely my fault,
    as I'm sure you'd agree.
    
    Awaiting enlightenment,
    Ron N
    -----------------------
    
    Bernard Stopper writes:
    
    No they dont and there are good physical reasons why they dont.
    (You will find not one tuner at Steinway (at least in Hamburg) who is
    allowed to service concerts with an ETD for example). This has nothing
    to do with traditionalism or ignorance to modern technology.
    Most modern ETDs are doing fast fourier transformation (FFT) for
    pitch calculation.
    Be sure, the he ear has no FFT transformator... There is a big
    difference in what you get measured and what you hear.
    In some ETD manuals you find sometimes statements of "0.1 Hz accuracy"
    This is true for a signal that would not float in pitch over more than 2
    or 3 seconds to catch enough samples at the current possible
    samplerates. Piano sounds are a really nonlinear matter that can float
    in pitch up to some Hz over a second, when strucked firm. By
    transforming a signal from the time domain into the frequency domain
    with the desired accuracy (what most ETDs do), you loose the
    information when a singal passes exactly what frequency at what time.
    Tuning with an ETD makes it necessary to tune at low volume levels
    (Pitch float is less at low volume levels). A good aural tuner tune with
    a firm struck, to catch also the transient phase of the sound at higher
    volumes. Low volume tuning is like not voicing the left pedal, it leaves
    the transient phase untuned. But sometimes it may happen, that the
    pianist also use volumes above mp...
    
    Bernhard Stopper
    


  • 74.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 10:58
    From "Robert Scott" <robert.scott@tunelab-world.com>
    
    Ric Brekne asked for it, so here's the deal on FFTs and TuneLab.
    
    The comments are correct that the FFT is used only for the Spectrum Display, which is simply a graph of the FFT power spectrum in the vicinity of the desired pitch.  The fine tuning is usually done with the Phase Display, which is functionally like the Accu-Tuner lights because a phase measurement is being made over and over again.  It is the phase between the selected partial and an internally-generated ideal signal.  In the case of TuneLab, this is all simulated in software.  In the case of Accu-Tuner, there is an actual quadrature electrical signal synthesized by the computer chip which is used to strobe transistor switches that drive the LEDs.  (I recommend the original Sanderson patent which describes this.  It is very readable.  I don't have the patent number handy, but you can find it on-line at the Patent Office website.)  By watching how the phase drifts forward or backward, the user determines if the piano pitch is high or low.  The advantage of a phase-type displa!
     y is  
    that there is a perfect trade-off between how long you watch the display and how precise the pitch comparison is.  The limiting factor is not the technology, but rather the length of the sustain of the note being measured.  Every time you strike the note, the phase starts out in a random place, so every strike is a new independent measurement, not a continuation of the measurement.  This analysis applies to the Yamaha PT-100, the Conn Strobo-tuner, the Peterson strobes, the Accu-Tuner, and TuneLab.  I don't know if Dave or Dean are using a phase-type calculation.  Even though both programs use a spinner, which looks like a phase-type display, it is entirely possible to synthesize the movement of the spinner from calculations that are based on FFTs.  In principle, it should be possible to extract the same amount of information from a FFT, provided the sample period was optimally-chosen.  The description of the CyberTuner in Dean's patents seems to imply that he is using a  
    time-domain bandpass filter to select a particular partial, and then measuring the time between a large number of zero-crossings to determine pitch.  Again, in principle, given the optimal bandpass filter and number of zero-crossings, it should be possible to extract the same amount of information as any of these other methods.  In my opinion, whether you use quadrature demodulation (like TuneLab and Accu-Tuner) or FFTs, or bandpass filters with zero-crossings, there is no intrinsic difference in the potential of these methods.  The differences, if there are any, would lie in the details of how each method was implemented.
    
    Robert Scott
    Real-Time Specialties
    


  • 75.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 13:53
    From Ron Nossaman <rnossaman@cox.net>
    
    > Even though both programs use a spinner, which looks like 
    > a phase-type display, it is entirely possible to synthesize the movement 
    > of the spinner from calculations that are based on FFTs.  In principle, 
    > it should be possible to extract the same amount of information from a 
    > FFT, provided the sample period was optimally-chosen.  
    
    That's what I thought originally. Now I'm not so sure. The trade off 
    between sampling rate and pitch resolution takes FFT out of the 
    ballpark for fine pitch resolution pretty quickly.
    
    Sampling rate must be higher than the Nyquist frequency, which is 
    twice the highest frequency the system produces. Since we're only 
    interested in frequencies up to the 4186+Hz of C-8, a sampling rate 
    of 11025 Hz might work. That would give us a 2.69 Hz bin resolution 
    in a 4096 bin FFT, which is manageable in real time, and 
    interpolation and averaging could get us a usable resolution. 
    Trouble is, while we may only be interested in the 4186+Hz of C-8, 
    it has partials too, so it and anything else anything producing 
    partials more than half the sampling rate will produce artifacts, 
    even from octaves down scale, and mess up our resolution. So we go 
    to a 22050Hz sample rate. That raises the Nyquist frequency high 
    enough to eliminate a lot of the artifacting from higher partials 
    toward the top of the scale, but it halves our pitch resolution to 
    5.38Hz per bin. Interpolation in real time at this resolution most 
    likely isn't going to get you close enough to function as a tuning 
    device. So you double the sample length to 8192. That gets you back 
    to the 2.69Hz bin resolution, but doubles your processing time, and 
    still may not be a fine enough resolution for a tuning device. It 
    also takes 0.37 seconds just to acquire the sample. So since 
    increasing the sample rate lowers bin resolution, that just 
    aggravates the problem, so going to 44100Hz or higher sampling 
    wouldn't help anything. Larger arrays increase pitch resolution, but 
    eat up machine cycles to the point that any but the newest machines 
    will take more time processing the FFT array than it takes to 
    retrieve the sample - even with your nice optimized Hartley 
    transform. This can be alleviated somewhat by interlacing task 
    cycles, as you seem to have done from the beginning with Tunelab. 
    This is also, I presume, why you went with a quadrature phase 
    algorithm for pitch matching instead of just extracting the needed 
    information from the FFT that you were already generating for the 
    spectrum display.
    
    So while it very well may be possible in dedicated hardware, to 
    process a large enough array at a high enough sample rate to 
    minimize Nyquist artifacting and produce a high enough pitch 
    determination accuracy to work as a tuning device, I don't believe 
    it's yet possible in today's general purpose computers and hand 
    helds. If it is, in real time, to an accuracy suitable for use in a 
    piano tuning device, I'd still love to know how it's done.
    
    Ron N
    


  • 76.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 11:22
    From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
    
    Robert !!
    
    Thank you so much for your straight forward and on topic response. I 
    would enjoy greatly it if you could go into a little more detailed 
    description of the algorithm behind the phase display  and  how it 
    measures pitch.  It would also be cool to hear a bit about how measuring 
    of several partials  at once (ie inharmonicity readings) is done on 
    different machines. 
    
    Cheers as always
    RicB
    
    .................................................................................................
    Ric Brekne asked for it, so here's the deal on FFTs and TuneLab.
    
    The comments are correct that the FFT is used only for the Spectrum 
    Display, which is simply a graph of the FFT power spectrum in the 
    vicinity of the desired pitch.  The fine tuning is usually done with the 
    Phase Display, which is functionally like the Accu-Tuner lights because 
    a phase measurement is being made over and over again.  It is the phase 
    between the selected partial and an internally-generated ideal signal.  
    In the case of TuneLab, this is all simulated in software.  In the case 
    of Accu-Tuner, there is an actual quadrature electrical signal 
    synthesized by the computer chip which is used to strobe transistor 
    switches that drive the LEDs.  (I recommend the original Sanderson 
    patent which describes this.  It is very readable.  I don't have the 
    patent number handy, but you can find it on-line at the Patent Office 
    website.)  By watching how the phase drifts forward or backward, the 
    user determines if the piano pitch is high or low.  The advantage of a 
    phase-type displa!
     y is  
    that there is a perfect trade-off between how long you watch the display 
    and how precise the pitch comparison is.  The limiting factor is not the 
    technology, but rather the length of the sustain of the note being 
    measured.  Every time you strike the note, the phase starts out in a 
    random place, so every strike is a new independent measurement, not a 
    continuation of the measurement.  This analysis applies to the Yamaha 
    PT-100, the Conn Strobo-tuner, the Peterson strobes, the Accu-Tuner, and 
    TuneLab.  I don't know if Dave or Dean are using a phase-type 
    calculation.  Even though both programs use a spinner, which looks like 
    a phase-type display, it is entirely possible to synthesize the movement 
    of the spinner from calculations that are based on FFTs.  In principle, 
    it should be possible to extract the same amount of information from a 
    FFT, provided the sample period was optimally-chosen.  The description 
    of the CyberTuner in Dean's patents seems to imply that he is using a  
    time-domain bandpass filter to select a particular partial, and then 
    measuring the time between a large number of zero-crossings to determine 
    pitch.  Again, in principle, given the optimal bandpass filter and 
    number of zero-crossings, it should be possible to extract the same 
    amount of information as any of these other methods.  In my opinion, 
    whether you use quadrature demodulation (like TuneLab and Accu-Tuner) or 
    FFTs, or bandpass filters with zero-crossings, there is no intrinsic 
    difference in the potential of these methods.  The differences, if there 
    are any, would lie in the details of how each method was implemented.
    
    Robert Scott
    Real-Time Specialties
    


  • 77.  Cracking the unisons

    Posted 01-07-2006 14:54
    From Don <pianotuna@yahoo.com>
    
    Hi Ric,
    
    I feel that the most offensive coincident partial needs to be dealt with.
    No electronic device can beat (no pun intended) the human ear at this--as
    it is subjective for the ear of the behearer.
    
    I believe that unisons are the most difficult thing to tune on pianos--and
    I believe that many times the plate flex is a greater component than most
    tuners accept. That's one additional reason for listening to all three
    strings open. Then there is the factor that removing the mute will change
    the tension. Muting is a necessary evil however.
    
    Most of my clientel is domestic tuning. This level of tuning is often
    unlikely for pianos within those parameters. 
    
    At 08:07 PM 1/6/2006 +0100, you wrote:
    >Interesting to hear (once again) some citing the use of high coincident
    >partials for tuning unisons.  Interesting because so many techs go about
    >this differently.  One thing I learned at the Yamaha Technical Acadamy
    >was to listen to the lowest possible coincidents... and not really to
    >just one single pair.
    >
    >Their idea of a clean unison... one I have come more and more to rely on
    >as time has passed since my last stay there..... has to do with how long
    >one can stretch out a kind of conglomerate beat rate of the most audible
    >lowest coincidents.  In almost every case you can keep it from going
    >full circle if you cant get it to level out perfectly.  Sometimes you
    >might have to exept a kind of sideways flutter... but no full circle
    >wave was ever accepted.
    >
    >When I mentioned trying to match higher partials he just smiled and
    >said...no no no...thats a disturbing and unclear sidestreet,  and he
    >would repeat his demonstration.  Since he was the guy giving the scores
    >out... I of course had to learn to do what he wanted.
    >
    >I think I've begun to like that approach as I started to often find that
    >if I tuned higher partials beatless then afterwards when I ran through
    >my quick double checks to just listen to the overall sound of octaves,
    >10ths, 12ths, and the like... I found that the character of bass unisons
    >varried far too much, where as if I did what the Japanese taught me I
    >had more of a consistant colour to the bass unisons.
    >
    >Cheers
    >RicB
    
    Regards,
    Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.P.T.
    Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat
    
    mailto:pianotuna@yahoo.com	http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/
    
    3004 Grant Rd. REGINA, SK, S4S 5G7
    306-539-0716 or 1-888-29t-uner