PianoTech Archive

From tlneely <tlneely@mindspring.com>

OK,
Since my original question was hijacked( as I was afraid it might be)
by the vitriol of both sides of the ETD controversy against the other, 
I am going to try once more to obtain information. Thanks to those of 
you who tried to answer before.

Let me re-phrase the question, without the mention of ETDs(oops just did).

Regardless of what test interval one chooses to use, is it appropriate to 
stretch octaves beyond that stretch indicated by that interval? If so, how 
do you determine how much, since the test interval stretch is being disregarded? 
Is it appropriate for example for C7 to be tuned at the theoretical megahertz
of C#7? C8 at C#8? Somewhere in between? The same question applies to the bass, 
just in reverse. Is it a case of"use the force, Luke"?

Thanks again in advance for your help,
Terry Neely

From chrisstor@aol.com

Terry,


I think your question is a good one.  However, I think the answer you get is going to differ depending on the tuner you talk to.  And each individual tuner who takes the time to answer your question responsibly will have their answer tinged with their own personal experience and subjective impression of what they want the piano to sound like in the end.  But I don't think tuners are disregarding octave tests, they're using a different set of tests.


Here's my take on it:
When I was learning to tune, My instructors said that "stretch just happens".  What they meant by that was that each individual piano's inharmonicity is going to dictate how wide you can set your octave for the temperament.  The inharmonicity will also suggest the octave widths in the bass, the octave widths in the midrange, and the the octave widths in the high treble.  They were just teaching us the basics - how to learn the beats of the intervals, the interval checks, how to test for a 4:2, 6:3 octave and so forth.  AND, (this is the big one), they were teaching us to the minimum level of competency required to pass the standards of the PTG exam.  The thought being, if you can pass the aural requirements of the PTG exam, these are the minimum demonstrations of competency for tuning a piano.  If you know how to tune a 4:2 and a 6:3 octave, you should also be able to get the idea that you may want to stretch to a 10:5 or even a 12:6 in the bass.  If you know how to tune a 4:2 octave that you should be able to make a clean 4:1 double octave, clean triple octave, etc in the high treble.


Imagine my shock when I started to figure out that not a lot of tuners actually tune pianos in real life to the standards required on the PTG exam.  And when I got my RCT and I started to hear the results of the stretched styles, I was even more shocked.  How could anyone stand that jangling single octave?  Ah!  but the triple and quadruple octaves sounded so clean, and the fifths were so quiet.  I realized I had just passed the PTG exam, but there was so much more to learn.  There's the matter of musical taste, making the instrument SOUND like a musical thing.  I realized that pianos in real life require something more to make them musical.


Susan Kline's post and David Anderson's allude to this.  (I had the privilege of hearing David Anderson tune and lecture on why he makes the tuning decisions he does. I haven't heard Susan's work, but her post was great, IMO.)  There's something that happens when you listen to a piano melodically that defies the convention of producing octaves with lower partial matches.  There seems to be some additional stretching that has to occur to make the piano a musical thing.  On other forums I think they refer to this as the "wow" factor.  I would guess that Susan is looking for this when she listens to recordings.  I don't know if I have a good answer for you on how to produce a stretch that achieves the "wow" factor, as I think I still have a lot to learn.  But I have heard it on some of the pianos tuned at the PTG conventions - and "wow!"


So... You seem to be asking "How does one know how to produce this ADDITIONAL stretch to make the piano a musical thing?"  In order to get their point across, the tuners who claim they are are producing the "wow" factor have to express their tuning decisions with a method or "recipe" in mind, plus whatever judgement calls that comes into play.  Bill Bremmer has a method - his "mindless" octaves.  Bernhard Stopper has his "duodecimes".  David Anderson just said, it's not neck up thinking, it's neck down.  These tuners seem to be explaining their individual tuning recipes and how they achieve their own idea of the "wow" factor.  To me, I listen to their explanations of their octave stretching techniques and other tests they may use to achieve their musical aim.  You said that the octave tests are being disregarded by those who stretch octaves.  I don't think they do.  I think they're using a different set of tests.  You gotta grill them, but they'll explain the stretching they do and why they do it.


I myself haven't come to a conclusion yet.  I do home tunings on a lot of spinets and it's hard to make them sound like a musical thing, no matter what I do.  I started out using my RCT on a fairly low stretch setting just so that the single octaves didn't drive me up the wall.  I've recently started using a higher stretch setting on some of the larger pianos that I come across.  Single octaves roll with the higher stretch settings, but the trade off is that the bass is more coherent with the treble.  I'm still not satisfied that I get a good match with the bass and the high treble, and I certainly haven't found my own personal recipe for how to achieve "wow".  As I read more and more on these lists, my tastes evolve and I learn what to try next.  I've got some more more learning to do.  But I know I'm not going to achieve my goals by completely disregarding the conventions of octave stretching and the tests.  I think I'm going to discover one day that, "oh yeah, if I do a balance between the triple octave and the octave plus fifth on the upper treble in this piano, that really brings out something" (or something like that).


Long post, I realize, but I hope my perspective is helpful.


Chris S.

From John Ashcraft <jaashcraft@gmail.com>

Let me chime in again. While I focused more on bass last time, I'd like to
observe something about the highest octave. Our perception of pitch differs
with circumstances, especially in that octave. Try playing both notes
together, say G6 and G7, then playing them in sequence. You will likely not
find a tuning that pleases you for both. Try tuning the center string to
your usual ETD setting. Tune the left aurally to give a nice octave when
the notes are played concurrently. Tune the right string to give a nice
sequential/arpeggiated octave. Compare the different strings. Do you have a
good unison?

Now you have three different octave tunings for G6 to G7. Each one is
justifiable. Sometimes I ask the player whether s/he usually plays octaves
or individual notes in that register. For the individual-note player, I
tune with more stretch, so that the ear is satisfied. For the
simultaneous-octave-player I tune with less stretch. If I'm tuning for a
concert, if the music has a preponderance of simultaneous octaves, a little
less stretch than an ETD indicates will sound better. On the other hand, if
the artist wants a clear, soaring melodic line, the passage will sound
better with more stretch an indicated by an ETD.

If there is no clear preference, then we get back to the central issue of
tuning. Each note after the one tuned first to the pitch standard is a
compromise. In the case of the top octave, you want broken and simultaneous
octaves to sound equally bad (equally good if you are an optimist).

--John Ashcraft, RPT

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 4:54 PM, <chrisstor@aol.com> wrote:

> Terry,
>
>  I think your question is a good one.  However, I think the answer you
> get is going to differ depending on the tuner you talk to.  And each
> individual tuner who takes the time to answer your question responsibly
> will have their answer tinged with their own personal experience and
> subjective impression of what they want the piano to sound like in the end.
>  But I don't think tuners are disregarding octave tests, they're using a
> different set of tests.
>
>  Here's my take on it:
> When I was learning to tune, My instructors said that "stretch just
> happens".  What they meant by that was that each individual piano's
> inharmonicity is going to dictate how wide you can set your octave for the
> temperament.  The inharmonicity will also suggest the octave widths in the
> bass, the octave widths in the midrange, and the the octave widths in the
> high treble.  They were just teaching us the basics - how to learn the
> beats of the intervals, the interval checks, how to test for a 4:2, 6:3
> octave and so forth.  AND, (this is the big one), they were teaching us to
> the minimum level of competency required to pass the standards of the PTG
> exam.  The thought being, if you can pass the aural requirements of the PTG
> exam, these are the minimum demonstrations of competency for tuning a
> piano.  If you know how to tune a 4:2 and a 6:3 octave, you should also be
> able to get the idea that you may want to stretch to a 10:5 or even a 12:6
> in the bass.  If you know how to tune a 4:2 octave that you should be able
> to make a clean 4:1 double octave, clean triple octave, etc in the high
> treble.
>
>  Imagine my shock when I started to figure out that not a lot of tuners
> actually tune pianos in real life to the standards required on the PTG
> exam.  And when I got my RCT and I started to hear the results of the
> stretched styles, I was even more shocked.  How could anyone stand that
> jangling single octave?  Ah!  but the triple and quadruple octaves sounded
> so clean, and the fifths were so quiet.  I realized I had just passed the
> PTG exam, but there was so much more to learn.  There's the matter of
> musical taste, making the instrument SOUND like a musical thing.  I
> realized that pianos in real life require something more to make them
> musical.
>
>  Susan Kline's post and David Anderson's allude to this.  (I had the
> privilege of hearing David Anderson tune and lecture on why he makes the
> tuning decisions he does. I haven't heard Susan's work, but her post was
> great, IMO.)  There's something that happens when you listen to a piano
> melodically that defies the convention of producing octaves with lower
> partial matches.  There seems to be some additional stretching that has to
> occur to make the piano a musical thing.  On other forums I think they
> refer to this as the "wow" factor.  I would guess that Susan is looking for
> this when she listens to recordings.  I don't know if I have a good answer
> for you on how to produce a stretch that achieves the "wow" factor, as I
> think I still have a lot to learn.  But I have heard it on some of the
> pianos tuned at the PTG conventions - and "wow!"
>
>  So... You seem to be asking "How does one know how to produce this
> ADDITIONAL stretch to make the piano a musical thing?"  In order to get
> their point across, the tuners who claim they are are producing the "wow"
> factor have to express their tuning decisions with a method or "recipe" in
> mind, plus whatever judgement calls that comes into play.  Bill Bremmer has
> a method - his "mindless" octaves.  Bernhard Stopper has his "duodecimes".
>  David Anderson just said, it's not neck up thinking, it's neck down.
>  These tuners seem to be explaining their individual tuning recipes and how
> they achieve their own idea of the "wow" factor.  To me, I listen to their
> explanations of their octave stretching techniques and other tests they may
> use to achieve their musical aim.  You said that the octave tests are being
> disregarded by those who stretch octaves.  I don't think they do.  I think
> they're using a different set of tests.  You gotta grill them, but they'll
> explain the stretching they do and why they do it.
>
>  I myself haven't come to a conclusion yet.  I do home tunings on a lot
> of spinets and it's hard to make them sound like a musical thing, no matter
> what I do.  I started out using my RCT on a fairly low stretch setting just
> so that the single octaves didn't drive me up the wall.  I've recently
> started using a higher stretch setting on some of the larger pianos that I
> come across.  Single octaves roll with the higher stretch settings, but the
> trade off is that the bass is more coherent with the treble.  I'm still not
> satisfied that I get a good match with the bass and the high treble, and I
> certainly haven't found my own personal recipe for how to achieve "wow".
>  As I read more and more on these lists, my tastes evolve and I learn what
> to try next.  I've got some more more learning to do.  But I know I'm not
> going to achieve my goals by completely disregarding the conventions of
> octave stretching and the tests.  I think I'm going to discover one day
> that, "oh yeah, if I do a balance between the triple octave and the octave
> plus fifth on the upper treble in this piano, that really brings out
> something" (or something like that).
>
>  Long post, I realize, but I hope my perspective is helpful.
>
>  Chris S.
>

From Susan Kline <skline@peak.org>

On 5/31/2012 2:59 PM, John Ashcraft wrote:
> In the case of the top octave, you want broken and simultaneous 
> octaves to sound equally bad (equally good if you are an optimist).

Exactly. That's why I said I "temper" between melodic and harmonic 
stretches in the top octave. I think too many people just go with 
beatless octaves, because it's what they've been doing with the rest of 
the piano, but in recordings one often hears the result as sounding flat.

Actually, I don't think that one should make the melodic and harmonic 
octaves EQUALLY good -- or bad.

We have to think of how that top register is going to be used, not just 
whether there are more simultaneous octaves played up there ("harmonic" 
octaves) but also which variety of octave (harmonic or melodic) will be 
the most prominent in the music being played. Usually the truly exposed 
high notes which one can hear clearly, the ones which usually sound 
flat, are melodic.

This is one more reason why it's important to go to concerts, instead of 
just depending on one's own tests and maybe a few minutes of playing 
one's most familiar pieces. Unless you are there in a concert, you won't 
be able to get a really good line of how your work is doing. I once 
thought of this as being like someone who grinds colors for oil paints, 
but never looks at paintings.

Susan Kline