Pianotech

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David: Thanks; but I fail to fully get your take on this. My point is simply to keep our ears and the soundboard in the tuning process. I mostly agree with the last post in the latency thread.

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 9:16:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David: Thanks; but I fail to fully get your take on this. My point is simply to keep our ears and the soundboard in the tuning process. I mostly agree with the last post in the latency thread.

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

Rather than flag your last post as inappropriate I will (at this point) simply state that I feel it is unnecessarily derogatory and condemnatory, and unbecoming of our professionalism. 

50 years ago (16 years old) when I was just learning to tune (aurally of course), my first teacher told me: "Those who use a machine need a crutch...don't do it". "ETD" users back then, as a group, we're seen as "tooners". As a result I was determined not to be one of "those". Well, the situation has changed dramatically since then. 

Aural tuners (categorically) referred to ETD users in a derogatory manner, whether they deserved it or not. Technology changes (not always necessarily for the better) and it can open up opportunities that did not previously exist. My point is this: You may not agree with something new, but if you don't want to do it...then don't, and leave it at that. No need to use vague references to essentially condemn or denigrate others who might disagree. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-07-2024 02:29
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 9:16:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David: Thanks; but I fail to fully get your take on this. My point is simply to keep our ears and the soundboard in the tuning process. I mostly agree with the last post in the latency thread.

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:33
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Eigenmodes

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:18
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:51:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 2:06:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:33
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Eigenmodes

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:18
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:51:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

Your statement about FFT's only being good for constant tones is totally refuted in 50 years of spectrogram analysis. The fact is, spectrograms based on FFT's are the prime tool for non-stationary signal analysis.

Ask anyone who has the credentials and equipment to replicate my experiment and results. They will find the same basic trends and results. I assume you don't have such a setup and don't have the expertise to achieve the frequency resolution in a window of time that is down to this level of precision. Just find the unbiased credentialed engineer who can do this, please. Keep it objective and not based on hunches or opinions. This is science, not art/opinion. --- Steve

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 14:53
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 2:06:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:33
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Eigenmodes

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:18
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:51:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David,

Your statement about FFT's only being good for constant tones is totally refuted in 50 years of spectrogram analysis. The fact is, spectrograms based on FFT's are the prime tool for non-stationary signal analysis.

Ask anyone who has the credentials and equipment to replicate my experiment and results. They will find the same basic trends and results. I assume you don't have such a setup and don't have the expertise to achieve the frequency resolution in a window of time that is down to this level of precision. Just find the unbiased credentialed engineer who can do this, please. Keep it objective and not based on hunches or opinions. This is science, not art/opinion. --- Steve

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 14:53
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 2:06:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:33
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Eigenmodes

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:18
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:51:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.

David, all you have to do is research "Spectgram" and then talk to any reputable signal processing expert. 

I recommend you close out your arguments with EXPERT opinion from a highly credentialed signal processing renowned person.

Steve

David,

Your statement about FFT's only being good for constant tones is totally refuted in 50 years of spectrogram analysis. The fact is, spectrograms based on FFT's are the prime tool for non-stationary signal analysis.

Ask anyone who has the credentials and equipment to replicate my experiment and results. They will find the same basic trends and results. I assume you don't have such a setup and don't have the expertise to achieve the frequency resolution in a window of time that is down to this level of precision. Just find the unbiased credentialed engineer who can do this, please. Keep it objective and not based on hunches or opinions. This is science, not art/opinion. --- Steve

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 14:53
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 2:06:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

What started this research? My partner, former MIT prof. and PhD in signal processing, recorded his Steinway B with 10 identical mics on various notes, and used intra-bin interpolated FFT's on the first 1 sec of data (a technique well accepted in the field). He looked as the spatial variance of the first 10 partials. Below is a picture of that result. This further allowed us to look into the basic mechanism. The parallel resonance model or eigemmodes is the best explanation so far. It also validates why aural tuners like Peter can count different beat rates (frequencies) spatially.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:33
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Eigenmodes

David, I reiterate the challenge that you have an objective non-biased researcher of high academic credentials in this field refute the 2014 paper or refute the findings I present. 

Every experienced tuner I have met understand spatial frequency variance. Again, think the parallel resonator model. That is essentially the 2014 research paper. All I have done is validate it.

Comments like "Emperor's New Clothes" does nothing to facilitate the discussion. Notice I don't use these ad hominem type of remarks. I stick to the engineering and data.

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 13:18
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 12:51:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

David,

I have a question for you. Since you've never been involved in the preparation of a piano for PTG exam purposes, you may be unaware of the process (although perhaps you are). At any rate, three techs are involved and must agree unanimously on each interval tuned and subsequently recorded. In the process, one tech is doing the tuning while the other two are listening and evaluating (so three are listening). It is not an uncommon experience for one or more of these tuners to aurally "hear" a different beat rate on an interval being tuned than the one actually tuning it. I have repeatedly had the experience where the tuner hears one beat rate, and the tech on the left hears another beat rate, and the third on the right hears yet another beat rate. When the "outsiders" switch positions they now hear what the other heard in that position. 

What, in your opinion would account for this if no spatial pitch differences exist?

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 07-12-2024 12:35
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/12/2024 11:44:00 AM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Eigenmodes

The discussion on Eigenmodes came from my video, which referenced a peer-reviewed paper from the Journal of Acoustic Society in 2014 which is cited in the video. The Video I posted can be found at

https://youtu.be/26zskT_GvkA

I have been studying this subject for over a year. The first reported finding from these experiments came from an earlier video I posted months prior. It can be found at

https://youtu.be/LPG32Kr1nKM

This research led to the development of examining the difference between capturing the piano sound through acoustics (a mic or human ear) vs capturing it directly off string movement. The conclusions are irrefutable and obvious. 

There is nothing new about the fact that the soundboard has eigenmode resonance points, 450,000 identified points in the paper. Each resonance point in the soundboard is physically like having that many resonators in parallel all over the soundboard. For those not familiar with resonators, think of a tuning fork as a resonator. Strike the tuning fork and it rings at its center frequency. This is what some are not understanding. Each pickup point acoustically across the soundboard will pick up spatially more or less from the nearest resonators or eigenmode points. Just because the string has its partials on it does not necessarily mean the soundboard resonates at exactly these partial frequencies, but in fact the board rings at thousands of frequencies, many of which are very close in frequency. Hence, spatial variance.

In any 'system' we want to know what the 'source' is doing. The source is the string movement. The acoustic system is the 'transfer function' from the source (strings) to the acoustic wave coming off the soundboard. The least biased way of measuring is from the string, since there are thousands of transfer functions effectively coming off the soundboard. 

If you talk to anyone involved in aural tuning exams, as Peter Grey has already cited, different beat rates come from different listening positions, causing judges to each hear different frequency results. 

Therefore, I believe that to refute the results would require a task far greater than what one already tried to refute so far. 'Opinions' are not sufficient, we need experimental data with precise engineering behind it.

Best,

Steve N.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
CEO/President
RF2BITS, Inc.
Cardiff CA
619-964-0101
steven@rf2bits.com

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 22:31
From: Tim Foster
Subject: Eigenmodes

Steven, thank you for this, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration of so many moving parts. I have found regardless of temperament I use, tuning all the wound strings aurally gives me the best results, especially on quality instruments. It takes a little longer, but I'm far more pleased with the finished product. 

------------------------------
Tim Foster RPT
New Oxford PA
(470) 231-6074

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 21:17
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Eigenmodes

Paul, thanks for reposting this. I think that an important aspect is the general truism that if you use different tools, you'll get different results. There are advantages and disadvantages to whichever one chooses and there are always tradeoffs.

In this case there is a big difference between aural tuning techniques and ETD's regardless of what is used for input. One advantage with aural technique is that the tuner is using exactly the same "hardware" and "software" as the end-use. It's worth noting that our auditory system is binaural and that is fundamental to  the way we listen. If one puts an earplug in one ear they will find a profound difference. 

In other words, we are set up to perceive sound in an environment that is always rich in reflection, phasing, and generally infused with input from multiple sources and loci. In addition to the rich output of the soundboard, there is also all the acoustic information generated by the space the piano is in, reflections, "noise", even relative humidity and barometric pressure. Aural tuning incorporates all that information without the need for statistical analysis, analogue to digital conversion, algorithms, etc. They are working in the same medium with its broad spectrum of characteristics as the listener

The monophonic EDT is at a disadvantage in this respect, it can't parse the overall environment in any meaningful or timely way, it can't turn it's head or do any other sort of triangulation of all the acoustic activity in the environment. In the case of a sensor that takes the signal exclusively from the strings, there is no consideration of that at all and it's interesting that using a sensor one can still create a good tuning - that's informative. A microphone or pickup is a poor match for a pair of ears. And our software has no capabilities whatsoever for processing binaural input.

Given the same instrument placed in 3 different rooms, an aural tuner is likely to create 3 different tunings because they are accounting for the acoustical space. Someone relying completely on an ETD will create the same tuning, bright room, dark room, big room, small room. 

Sometimes it's hard to tell what is a feature and what is a flaw, sometimes not.

There other things that ETD's excel at, tuning various temperaments and styles with a turn of the dial, calculating over pull for raising or lowering the pitch, providing data and graphic representations, working in noisy environments. But there are tradeoffs.

In a different thread, Peter Grey commented that among aural tuners one learns to find a "signature" in their work, another word might be character. All that tends to get flattened out when we use automation. It's telling that as one goes up the ladder from production pianos to better and better quality instruments one finds less and less automation in the factories till the very best instruments are largely hand made.

I agree Paul, more careful listening and more special attention.

------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129

Original Message:
Sent: 07-06-2024 14:05
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Eigenmodes

Original Message:
Sent: 7/6/2024 1:26:00 PM
From: Paul Klaus
Subject: Eigenmodes

     Why favor a tuning device meant to avoid eigenmodes when a full approach would include them? 

  "The point is, you don't need to bother yourself with eigenmodes if you get the information (data, etc.) from the string itself, not the soundboard."

     Disregard the soundboard? Really. So even though the soundboard produces what we actually hear, tuners need not bother to listen?  How curious!  Unique quirky board resonances would seem to make the case for special attention and more careful listening not less.