Pianotech

Expand all | Collapse all

Three "Raindrops"

  • 1.  Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-14-2019 11:18
    David Pinnegar wrote:

    "... Chopin's Raindrop Prelude is the acid test as to whether it's too strong.
    ... Really with the way in which pianos go out of tune in time tuning isn't as precise a science as decimal points might indicate. The importance of Kirnberger or Kellner are the very pleasant smooth thirds in F C and G and their contrast in modulation which gives a feeling of movement in the music. This effect is achieved even if tuning has degraded so whilst it's nice to be spot on, obsessive attention to detail isn't musically vital at all."

    Interesting comments.

    I have three recordings of the Raindrop Prelude. Identical performances, same piano and recording set-up, but three different tunings,

    I was hoping some might take a listen and report their preferences.

    The files are in my Dropbox:

    https://tinyurl.com/y3wrojfd

    ------------------------------
    Kent Swafford
    Lenexa KS
    913-631-8227
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-14-2019 12:10
    Why is it that when I tap on it nothing happens, and when I type it into my browser it says no results?


    ------------------------------
    Peter Grey
    Stratham NH
    603-686-2395
    pianodoctor57@gmail.com
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-14-2019 12:12
    It worked for me. I copied-pasted it into my address bar.
    Here's the link formatted as a clickable link: https://tinyurl.com/y3wrojfd

    ------------------------------
    Anthony Willey, RPT
    http://willeypianotuning.com
    http://pianometer.com
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Posted 09-14-2019 13:44
    Links cannot be accessed by tapping on them if they are bold. They can be accessed if they are not bold.

    https://tinyurl.com/y3wrojfd

    https://tinyurl.com/y3wrojfd


    I have encountered the same problem quite recently.

    ------------------------------
    Roshan Kakiya
    ------------------------------



  • 5.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Posted 09-14-2019 12:59
    Hmmm... That's a cruel test!

    My guess is that if any are equal it's the second. Possibly the 1st is less unequal tempered than the 3rd but I struggle to hear a lot of difference.

    When tuning a real instrument with stretch using the Railsback curve measured and applied by TuneLab I've experienced much much stronger variations than I can hear here. And by strong I mean nasty . . . 

    I'm guessing that this is an electronic simulation. Whilst electronics can be good, very good, the real instrument is a more complex beast than the electronics can simulate so in electronic sound sourcing the curry has to be spiced with at  least one more chilli than a real instrument to make an audible difference. The next problem is in the use of MIDI files because these do not account for what the performer hears and therefore adjusts to. For instance in an unequal temperament a performer might luxuriate in a beautiful sound more and take more time over doing so, and play a difficult sound more delicately. It's a complex interaction in which the assumed clinicism inherent in a "scientific" approach is incomplete in not accounting for the performer's reaction to the sound they hear.

    But it's a start and an important one in demonstrating that unequal temperaments can be an acceptable alternative to the equal temperament. When then we include the resonances of which a real instrument is capable we find an extra tool in the armoury of making music.

    Best wishes

    David P

    --
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    +44 1342 850594





  • 6.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-14-2019 18:05
    This didn't sound like an electronic instrument to me. It sounded like a really nice piano. It helped me to use headphones instead of relying on my wimpy laptop speakers.

    The playing was beautiful and I liked all 3 versions. 

    The version I liked the least was #1. The C# Major sections at the beginning and the end had kind of a pinched feel that made me cringe a bit, kind of like when you're listening to a choir and the altos drift flat. Maybe this is my equal-tempered ears rejecting the unfamiliarity of UT. But I think I can appreciate the people who say UT brings more emotion into music. The minor sections sounded more...tragic...I suppose. But I found it distracting elsewhere. Didn't notice it as much in the loud sections though.

    Versions #2 and #3 were harder to tell apart, but if I had to pick a favorite it would be #3. The most noticeable difference between the two for me was in the loud sections where it breaks out of C# minor into E Major. Number 3 sounded fuller there...more open or resonant.
    ​​​​​
    One thing I heard that I had never noticed in this piece before was something in the very last chord. It seems to start as a big chord but then halfway through the player seems to release some of the notes in the bass, allowing those notes to dampen. It goes from a rich sound with obviously beating intervals to relatively pure. Really cool effect. That was another difference between #1 and 2&3. In #1 the last chord didn't feel nearly as settled, and then when it went pure it felt too pure. The word that came to mind was "flat".
    ​​​

    ------------------------------
    Anthony Willey, RPT
    http://willeypianotuning.com
    http://pianometer.com
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-15-2019 09:26
    Quoting myself:
    I have three recordings of the Raindrop Prelude. Identical performances, same piano and recording set-up, but three different tunings,

    I was hoping some might take a listen and report their preferences.
    The files are in my Dropbox:
    tinyurl.com/y3wrojfd
    [end of quote]

    Thanks for taking a listen.
    These were made with a professionally-produced MIDI file.
    This was the digitally-modeled Steingraeber in Pianoteq. I have been using Pianoteq for many years, and it has greatly improved over the years.
    The tunings I use are complex to produce. I tune just as I would a real piano. In this case, I used Verituner with my styles for pure octave ET and pure 12th ET. I used Verituner to convert the pure octave ET into Kellner.
    The tunings are built note by note: I read each note with Verituner and create an 88 note Scala file which can be loaded into Pianoteq. The process is tedious, but yields a real tuning that I can take responsibility for.

    500k is Kellner. Mild, right?
    508 is pure octave ET. In fairness, few if any actually tune ET this narrow. Octaves and compound octaves are kept absolutely as clean as is possible, albeit pure 4:2 in temperament area. See comments below. I developed a Verituner style for pure octave ET to demonstrate that we don't really tune that way, but that it is possible. I dislike those 2 cent contracted fifths! But the pure octave style, in which both octaves and compound octaves are very clean, serves as a fine base in Verituner for historical temperaments. The lack of artificial stretch should preserve the original intent of unequal temperaments and allow their implementation on the modern piano.
    512 is pure 12th ET. I like it because of the pure effect in sustained chords and the balance between octaves and fifths. Accurately tuned pure 12th ET is only slightly "stretched".
    I think the differences between the three are surprisingly subtle. The subtlety may come from the "laboratory" conditions here. The tunings are very accurate and the stretch is uniformly and very carefully controlled; humidity and temperature cannot introduce drift; the piano tone is idealized with no wild notes to interfere with tuning and listening.

    By the way, the pure octave ET is done with partials. It is never, NEVER correct to tune a piano outside the treble from the fundamental. Note that aurally it isn't really possible to tune the mid-range using the fundamental (except perhaps from a set of tuning forks?). In the early days of ETD tuning, piano mid-ranges were indeed tuned from the fundamentals, with disappointing results. True, lower partials are less affected by inharmonicity, but higher partials are greatly affected; intervals as basic as the 3:2 fifths can be thrown grossly off by inharmonicity. This is basic knowledge and is not controversial; I have heard gross tuning errors from tuning only the fundamentals with my own ears.

    For the most part, frequency ratios are irrelevant to piano tuning. Piano tuners refer to coincident partials pairs, not frequencies. Don't be confused by the similar numbers. On a piano, a 2:1 octave is that in which the upper note is tuned beatless with the 2nd partial of the lower note. The frequency ratio between the two fundamentals of a 2:1 octave is irrelevant. (Well, it is irrelevant unless one can demonstrate in a real tuning that it is relevant, and then explain exactly why such relevance is so. Good luck with that.)




    ------------------------------
    Kent Swafford
    Lenexa KS
    913-631-8227
    ------------------------------



  • 8.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-15-2019 10:59
    Well, put me down in the list of people who have been fooled by a digital piano. *note to self: check out this "pianoteq" thing*

    ------------------------------
    Anthony Willey, RPT
    http://willeypianotuning.com
    http://pianometer.com
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Posted 09-15-2019 22:53
    Very brilliant. And it's wonderful to hear the way in which Pianoteq can be so excellent.

    But when you put the Pianoteq 1899 Bechstein next to the 1885 version of the real thing, the real thing is more complex and it's this that makes more of a difference to the unequal temperaments.

    I hear what you say about tuning fundamentals, but since I've been tuning "organ style" with the CTS5 tuner, both Michael Gamble and I have been getting good results that people like, and transferable across different instruments. It's the bottom and the top that have to be tuned with partials but the central octaves can be tuned straight to fundamentals.

    Best wishes

    David P

    --
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    +44 1342 850594





  • 10.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-16-2019 07:09
    David Pinnegar wrote:

    "It's the bottom and the top that have to be tuned with partials but the central octaves can be tuned straight to fundamentals."

    It is difficult to believe you are serious. I have long taught to try to find the truth in what people are saying; that is, find the specific conditions in which what you say is true. It doesn't help to just repeatedly claim that the mid-range can be tuned with fundamentals. You need to explain how that can possibly be true in the face of decades of tuning practice that has been specifically developed to avoid the gross tuning errors that tuning the mid-range from fundamentals is known to cause.


    ------------------------------
    Kent Swafford
    Lenexa KS
    913-631-8227
    ------------------------------



  • 11.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Posted 09-16-2019 14:05
    Kent - it's simply how I've come to do a repeatable tuning that people like.

    It was Michael Gamble who gave me the hint to not use stretch. The tunings I've heard of his have always been impeccable and reliable and since taking on his advice suddenly I found that whilst before people were merely curious about my advocacy of unequal temperaments now people experiencing them are enthusiastic. But he also tunes by ear in the bottom two octaves so like mine his tunings are not devoid of stretch there. 

    Following his example I use a CTS5 tuner very commonly used in the organ building world which tunes straight without stretch, as well as offering stretchings. I assume that tuning by ear over three octaves can be done by perfect fifths tuning as with sine waves without harmonics but haven't tried it. Part of this can be done by listening for the coincident subharmonic an octave below the lower note and certainly major thirds can be tuned that way in the treble octave.

    Unequal temperaments aren't whether anything sounds nasty but how performers are sensitive to what they hear. So if something sounds strained they'll play it more gently. It's in this way there is a dynamic with the music that's inappropriate to be tested by MIDI files, and it's this encouragement of sensitivity that can result in more meaningful performance in which emotions are expressed all the more.

    In the organ repertoire using stronger temperaments than we can use on pianos composers built in expectation of changing chord shapes, and contrasts between sweet and sour. Recordings of Couperin on the 1775 instrument at St Maximin, France, demonstrate this and the repertoire one hears on that instrument becomes dead and flaccid on a modern tuned instrument.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRUyOKm5KHc  is a nice recording. The instrument is capable of raising the hairs on one's back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMqYiMHm9Hk and in that piece in C major we enjoy the very pure thirds. In the opening Kyrie which I cannot find a recording of at St M Couperin contrasts sweet with sour, lost in modern tuning. Whilst contrasts to the extent that we hear at St M aren't appropriate for later music they remain valuable throughout the repertoire and many musicians who experience a Kellner tuning on the piano find excitment in new doors that the changes of key open to them, and well tuned, not in an objectionable way. I've been working on this for a dozen to 15 years or so so don't expect people familiar with conventional tuning techniques to click with it overnight. 

    Best wishes

    David P

    --
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    +44 1342 850594





  • 12.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Posted 09-19-2019 07:09
    Thanks to all here who have made me think . . . and remember. Sometimes one works things out, works upon their result, and forgets the steps of reasoning that one takes to get there.

    The reason why Equal Temperament is very ugly without stretch is . . . well a reason anyway . . . the subharmonics or the difference frequencies of the major thirds. A treble C-E will give a resultant difference tone two octaves below halfway between the C and C#. When I hear it it's very ugly. When equal temperament is stretched it will take that discordant frequency further away from the recognisable associated note so that it's dissociated.

    This is the secret of unequal temperaments and unstretching. The wider thirds will take that difference frequency further away to the realms of dissociation whilst the nearly pure thirds, if the temperament octaves in the middle are unstretched, will place that difference note spot onto the fundamental with which they harmonically relate. Likewise many pure fifths will do the same so that harmony is put on steroids, the sound becoming mutually reinforcing, louder, sweeter, more harmonic and more solid.

    I appreciate that what I've been saying has seemed very bizarre to those steeped in a lifetime of ET tuning and getting it to sound at its very best, but hopefully this simple explanation might help us to understand how and why a good unequal temperament can be an effective and very musical tool of improvement for the piano.

    It also might explain why I have a preference for temperaments which try to shove as many pure fifths and thirds into the octave and why I'm rather dismissive of for instance 1/6 comma meantone which although giving key colour gives nothing pure, and other temperaments that are neither beast nor foul in terms of achieving the harmonic accordances that perhaps now can be seen in plain sight as a goal that's worthy to be aimed at.

    Best wishes

    David P

    ------------------------------
    David Pinnegar BSc ARCS
    Curator and House Tuner - Hammerwood Park, East Grinstead, Sussex UK
    antespam@gmail.com

    Seminar 6th May 2019 - http://hammerwood.mistral.co.uk/tuning-seminar.pdf "The Importance of Tuning for Better Performance"
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-15-2019 17:38
    Very cool Kent. Thanks

    "PTG - Expand your horizon - Share the vision:
    Providing Quality Service for the World's Pianos

    Good, Better, Best. Never let it rest, 'til the good is better and the better is best."

    To schedule an appointment online click here http://bit.ly/2ErRaav

    George W.R.(Bill) Davis, RPT, SERVP
    The Piano Place GA
    2315 Rocky Mountain Rd NE
    Marietta GA 30066
    (770) 778-6881

    Sent from my iPhone





  • 14.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Member
    Posted 09-16-2019 12:54
    Kent, I came late to this party but I purposely did not read any of the discussion until after I had done my own analysis. I put all three mp3 files into Audacity as perfectly aligned separate tracks in one project, so that I could play the piece and sections of the piece with repetition, and click the Solo button to hear one or another of the versions as I studied what I was hearing. After I made my notes, I read the rest of the conversations so I know which was which.
    Initially I focused on the final chord (the last 5-10 seconds). The beat rate of the M3 settled at 2.5 bps for 508, 3 bps for 512, and 5+ bps for 50k. Based on that, I determined that 50k was an unequal temperament with the C#-F M3 being harsh. The corresponding purity of the 5ths is incidental and irrelevant to my ear. The harshness of the C# M3 (and the related D#-F# m3) occurs many times, especially in the opening (0:13 - 0:19). In the minor passages in the dark center of the piece (1:48 - 2:08) I registered no significant difference between any of the versions.
    Having to choose between 508 and 512, I prefer 512, which feels comfortable like a pair of old slippers.

    Cheers
    Jason Kanter
    | || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||
    jason's cell 425 830 1561






  • 15.  RE: Three "Raindrops"

    Registered Piano Technician
    Posted 09-16-2019 21:35
    Kent, perhaps where the truth you mention lies is that there is the sharpness over the fundamental one gets by tuning to partials and the additional "stretch" above that that is applied to help reconcile compound intervals such as achieving pure double octaves. Is that correct to see them as two separate things?
    I don't know if that speaks to David's notions. I can however see how flattening octaves in the middle might serve some utility for an unequal scheme, the tradeoff being inharmonic conflicts and skewing the relationships with the outer octaves, the upper being somewhat narrower and the lower being somewhat wider if using the middle for the reference. It gets a little muddled there in terms of an overlap between what does or does not get stretched. 
    Equal temperaments aim for a smooth progression of intervals across the compass, artificially jiggering octaves without regard to inharmonicity makes no sense.

    ------------------------------
    Steven Rosenthal
    Honolulu HI
    808-521-7129
    ------------------------------