I was the one to try to find a note with all strings "clean" in the middle of the piano, and I went a full octave before deciding to settle on a "least dirty" note. Those false beats were still audible after tuning the unison with Piansens, but the beatless partials were breathless to the end.
The experiment I had in mind was to 1.) find a clean note, 2.) aurally achieve an unimprovably dead unison (exam-piano-master-tuning style), and then 3.) measure the three string strings with Pianosens to judge our accuracy.
I was also the first one to try the aural unison (figuring that for my hearing, a false beat in one partial wouldn't distract me from tuning the pure partials). Without the benefit of getting to know the piano during an initial pitch correction pass, I came in on it cold. To refer to Duke Ellington's praise of his lead alto Johnny Hodges, he could pick up a cold horn and a dry reed and make music. Me, only just seated at the piano with a tuning lever, I'm no Johnny Hodges.
My hope is the Peter can repeat this by himself on a suitable piano (tuning not for bloom, but for the highest audible unison beat-free - a note in the 3d/4th octaves with plenty of partials). This would put a number (x.x¢) on the distance between our best aural unison and the target as shown by Pianosens. Of course, this invitation extends to any others with the hardware.
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-15-2024 21:52
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Norman,
All the wires had "false" beats in them, i.e. from a mild whine in one string to meows in two of the three. And it had not been tuned in about a month. When we tuned a unison it sounded "good" but even when brought to .1ct spread (nearly right on target) it still had movement.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-15-2024 20:56
From: Nathan Monteleone
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
> And a "REALLY good" sounding Steinway B without one "truly pure clean unison"? Really? Regards, Norman.
IIUC there was some period where Steinway deliberately slanted the line of the bridge pins of each unison. I have no idea if they did it on B's, but if this is one of them then yeah I bet every damn unison was near impossible to get truly pure.
------------------------------
Nathan Monteleone RPT
Fort Worth TX
(817) 675-9494
nbmont@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-15-2024 10:22
From: Norman Brickman
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Peter, yes, thanks for the review of the NH chapter meeting. My take-away might be a little different from Tremaine's. The B sounds like a typical excellent quality Steinway that can really shine. Using the TuneLab ETD (or the TuneLab as controlled by Mark D) is a magic bullet for tuning it, as is using the OnlyPure (or the OnlyPure as controlled by Pat D); two clear winners.
So why did the collective at the meeting, including with trying the new PianoSens as input to an ETD, have such difficulty, with no other magic bullets emerging? Was it a disturbed environment/climate with all the folks present? Was there too much concentration on irrelevant measures of accuracy? Any further clarification?
And a "REALLY good" sounding Steinway B without one "truly pure clean unison"? Really? Regards, Norman.
------------------------------
Norman Brickman
Potomac Piano Service
Potomac, Maryland
potomacpiano@verizon.net
https://potomacpiano.com
(301) 983.9321
Original Message:
Sent: 02-14-2024 20:58
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Thank you Peter,
I was interested in hearing about the meeting and any results. Too bad you did not have a cleaner unison tuning piano to work with.
------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299
Original Message:
Sent: 02-13-2024 17:04
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Update on NHPTG February meeting at Concord Community Music School in Concord, NH:
We had very good attendance from our chapter as well as representatives from the Boston chapter and even Rhode Island. FYI, I'm doing this from memory therefore I might not recall every single detail with total accuracy, but it will be close enough.
I started out by asking how many use a device in their tuning. All but one raised their hands. The devices represented were Tunelab, RCT, Accutuner, and Pianoscope, IIRC. Virtually all agreed that they had issues with jitter and repeatability, however all seemed to have devised a method of dealing with it satisfactorily. Noisy environments was another issue of large agreement but I seem to recall that at least a couple people didn't seem to have a problem with that. I suggested that the Pianosens device could help with all of these issues (not necessarily 100%, but significantly). We all then crowded around the piano (a Steinway B from around #556xxx) to start testing stuff.
It turns out that it's really difficult to find any unison on this piano that is totally clean of false beats. We searched and didn't find one, however there were a few that were tolerable. The goals were to: 1) tune one or more unisons to within .1 cent so as to hear what they sound like, as well as see how close we could come tuning unisons aurally only. Then, 2) compare cent readings between devices with a mic and devices with sensor attached to see if there was a difference and if so how much? I will not replay every single thing but rather whatni consider to be highlights. Others on this list who were in attendance can also put their .02 in freely either to correct me or to add something that I've skipped over that they feel is important.
We started tuning a few unisons aurally and we all gave our critical opinions as to whether they were "acceptable" or not. Really hard as they all had a "whine" in them no matter what. Then we started using Pianoscope (with freeze function alive) with the sensor to see if we could do better. We had varying success. One though in particular (that I recall) that we tried and tried on and could not get clean to any degree finally (ONLY by bringing it into .1ct tolerance) became close to acceptable. That was interesting. Now to be fair though, there was another unison that was seriously bad when brought to within .1ct and only became barely "acceptable" by bringing the center string sharp by approximately .7 - .8cts. again IIRC. We messed with others too. One in particular I'll let Bill Ballard recount as he had a specific test in mind that he was chomping at the bit (and getting rather impatient I might add 😉) to perform.
So the unfortunate thing about this was that were physically unable to locate a truly pure clean unison so as to demonstrate what the designer Steve N. has talked about. However, in time I'll probably locate one somewhere else. All in all I think that it was reasonably demonstrated that an ETD coupled with the sensor has the capability of improving our unison tuning. (We shall see how many argue this point).
One other thing I want to say and that is that several months ago Pat Draine, RPT (in attendance yesterday) tuned this B using Onlypure ad a demonstration for us and the thing sounded REALLY good, so I tip my hat to him since he experienced the difficulties we experienced 88 times. He did a great job with it. Likewise Mark Dierauf, RPT (also in attendance) is the attending technician for this instrument which is used as a performance instrument, who similarly does a great job at making the piano sound great (he uses Tunelab BTW). Point is that despite its technical challenges this instrument has the ability to sing nicely when tuned as well as it can be. (As Chris Storch, RPT [in attendance] commented: "It's not a flaw...it's a feature..."
On to measurements. To make a long post not as long as it could be...comparisons in readings of notes did in fact show (what I think most us agreed on) reasonably significant differences between a mic based ETD and the sensor based ETD. Several notes were compared string by string and variances of from .4cts to as much as .9cts occurred (the program was recorded so if someone wants to challenge my memory feel free to find the data). In contrast m, I noticed that the sensor based ETD only varied by about. 1ct in repeatability. The "competing" devices for this test were RCT on a cellphone and Pianoscope on IPad with sensor.
This was not a super scientific analysis but it was clear that there is a difference. Whether the differences are significant or important enough are up to each individual to decide. By this point it was getting late and we had to wrap up. However one final thing thatni noticed as we were talking around the piano with various devices running was that the the mic based devices were showing all the interference from voices in the display whereas Pianoscope with sensor attached showed nothing, clearly exhibiting the advantage in a noisy environment. All in all it seemed that everyone enjoyed the demonstration and analysis.
So, anyone else that was in attendance yesterday that wants to contribute to this please do so.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 23:07
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
I'm no expert with it yet but I can say that it certainly clearly shows everything the string does. The freeze function is definitely a clear step up in the accuracy dept (possibly a bit "too" accurate for the vast majority of tuners, including me), however if the device does nothing more than stabilize the display on a jittery ETD (which it does...thus far) AND make it totally possible to tune in adverse noise environments, it's well worth the cost AFAIC.
The fact that it's a little clunky on uprights is an acceptable compromise. Most PSO's are not worth the level of accuracy and repeatability this unit is designed for. A large and good quality upright is likely worth a little extra effort.
Looking forward to a good hands on workshop class tomorrow.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 18:59
From: Bill Ballard
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Steven N. went:"Pianoscope's Freeze Line feature averages the tuning over the prescribed period so it takes the mental errors of guess work out. "
I'm sure it does. I'm just saying that's how I've dealt with TuneLab's jittering for my nine year's time with it, during which I've been happy with the results. BTW, all unisons (beyond the single bass string), I do aurally. Use it or lose it.
"We cannot use our eyes or use the 'blush' feature of a certain app to wait for the steady state. There is NO steady state of pitch in piano due to non-linearity."
I'm not necessarily waiting for a steady state. Early in my career, I decided not to be in a hurry to sign off on a unison/interval until I'd listened to it over its length, just to see what it would do. We'll set aside the matter of re-attack tuning. I'm sure the PianoSens would demonstrate for me what happens to pitch after 1.5 seconds, but I've been doing very well under the assumption that the prompt sound is the most chaotic part of a note's sound, and making my judgements later on in the decay.
That said, I'm very impressed by your invention and look forward to Peter Grey's demonstration tomorrow.
------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107
"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 15:46
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Jitter is the proper word.
Pianoscope's Freeze Line feature averages the tuning over the prescribed period so it takes the mental errors of guess work out. That is why I invented the concept. It was THE NUMBER ONE problem first to be solved. NO OTHER APP (YET) has it. It puts Pianoscope in a league of its own. I am NOT (emphatically ) a rep and don't get any compensation whatsoever for saying this about Pianoscope.
Yet another factor for the Freeze Line. Pianos have NON-LINEARITY, in addition to inharmonicity. No one seems to talk enough about it, as it is just as big a factor. The non-linearity of the string and hammer result in pitch decay along with amplitude decay. If the string and hammer were linear, there would only be amplitude decay and no pitch decay. The upper partials decay faster and the lower partials decay slower. We cannot use our eyes or use the 'blush' feature of a certain app to wait for the steady state. There is NO steady state of pitch in piano due to non-linearity. So, we can Freeze the frequency measurements from the moment of the hammer attack to a programmable point AFTER the attack, and do this in a deterministic manner that is invariant and repeatable and dependable. NO HUMAN can do this, no matter how good of a tuner they are.
Steve N.
Original Message:
Sent: 2/11/2024 3:40:00 PM
From: Bill Ballard
Subject: RE: Initial experience with Pianosens
Steven R. went: "Bill, that's what I meant, one with the PianoSens, one with a mic. (using the same app)"
Thanks for the clarification. You had mentioned two apps.
Steven N. went: "Doing these kinds of experiments for many months, one must also have two sets of IH measurements, one using the mic and one using the sensor. The parallel devices running next to each other have to be using their own respective IH.
We're still trying to remember how we got Patrick's iPad to show on a 56" monitor. I'm guessing that even if we can figure out that connection, real-time parallel displays will not be possible. Except of course, if everyone crowds around the piano to see displays from two devices, in which case iPhones would not be helpful. It looks like we'll have one device with two audio captures (mic and PianoSens), with serial, not parallel views.
Also, it is very easy to find 'no difference examples' and cherry pick as proof text the conclusions. Again, try some of the harder examples in the videos."
I wouldn't do that. Even with PianoLab, which allows one to go up to and no higher than the 7th partial (my setting), once we're out of the prompt sound and into the aftersound, there is plenty of "dithering". I've dealt with that be keeping a mental running average, eliminating the outliers and figuring out where the dithering seems to be centered. So I think that whatever EDT software Peter is using, we'll have a usual bucket-load of dithering.
------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107
"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 14:15
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Bill, that's what I meant, one with the PianoSens, one with a mic. (using the same app)
------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 14:04
From: Bill Ballard
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Steven went: "I have done comparisons between two apps by having both my iPods running at the same time side by side. The only thing is to make sure they are both calibrated the same. Perhaps you could do a split screen."
We not so much interested in comparing two mic-based EDTs side by side (for issues earlier mentioned). Just the ability to display one ETD using the built-in mic and then using PianoSens. Right now, we're figuring how to get Peter's cellphone screen over to a separate, large monitor.
------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107
"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 12:15
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
I have done comparisons between two apps by having both my iPods running at the same time side by side. The only thing is to make sure they are both calibrated the same. Perhaps you could do a split screen.
------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 10:34
From: Bill Ballard
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Patrick went:
Peter, I assume on Monday you will be demonstrating your PianoSens on a S&S B. It would be great if the chapter could put a vertical on stage too, so we can see what that set up is like.
The actual demonstration will be done on the Stwy B. It would be an easy matter to find a vertical piano somewhere in the building to explore accessibility there. Already I imagine that the hardware won't fit in the top half of the 5th octave because of the steady line of dampers (through D#6) and a lowering of the v-bar.
Hoping to "plug in" and try some other apps, if allowed!
Absolutely! Steven can confirm whether most of our ETD software are ready to accept PianoSens's USB input. Toggling between a note using a smart phone's mic and PianoSens will be fun. Last year with your OnlyPure demo we had a large screen display; hopefully we can reassemble that connection. I'd also love to do some screen captures.
CU tomorrow.
------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107
"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 09:08
From: Patrick Draine
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Peter, I assume on Monday you will be demonstrating your PianoSens on a S&S B. It would be great if the chapter could put a vertical on stage too, so we can see what that set up is like.
Hoping to "plug in" and try some other apps, if allowed!
------------------------------
Patrick Draine RPT
Billerica MA
(978) 663-9690
Original Message:
Sent: 02-11-2024 08:31
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Norman,
I've been concentrating on completing a couple of rebuilds, and the dead of winter is not a time that I schedule regular tunings here in New England but rather do primarily shop work. I just completed one which was the only one in the shop that is in a tunable playable condition.
I do not plan to use Pianosens on PSO's but rather on instruments of finer quality. However as I get more used the process I will doubtlessly expand its usage. You also need to remember that I am an analog tuner slowly beginning to integrate ETD into my work so there's a double transitional learning curve for me. But if it were not for the Pianosens device making the ETD actually USEFUL, I wouldn't be doing it at all. Give me some time.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 22:28
From: Norman Brickman
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Peter, thanks for posting your personal testimonial on PianoSens. Reviews are important. You have had PianoSens for at least a week now, but are not yet a regular/exclusive user of it. Why? And might you want to update us in this thread for the next couple of weeks on how your learning curve is going, what you refer to as needing to "take more getting used to"? What areas do you currently find need the most getting used to? When do you estimate that you will become an exclusive PianoSens user for all your tunings, or do you only expect such dedication for the noisy environments that you mention?
Steven, while we are still talking about PianoSens in this main PTG listserver discussion group, can you request that some more of your current set of users share their personal experience like Peter has? Regards, Norman.
------------------------------
Norman Brickman
Potomac Piano Service
Potomac, Maryland
potomacpiano@verizon.net
https://potomacpiano.com
(301) 983.9321
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 14:09
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Added comment... from above reply....
My device has no knowledge of temperaments. It is not doing IH. It has no judgment of subjective aspects of aural tuning.
It is simoly a better waveform reader, meant to provide an FFT-based spectrum analyzer far more consistent and accurate and better-centered frequencies to be processed without all the acoustic anomalies that we have today, including our ears which are also biological microphones, and our brains which are doing spectral analysis.
Hope that clarifies further.
Best,
Steve
------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 11:39
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your reply. Since ETD's cannot self-reference their own quality of measurement, there has to be an outside reference that has a higher level of measurement accuracy. I will reiterate that I don't expect piano techs to become professional signal processing engineers. It is very time consuming to do this as well as requiring a highly specialized expertise. So that leaves us in a situation where the piano tech has to 'trust the vendor' and also use highly subjective personal experience.
What I am conducting is basic research, and I share it with members like yourself as a community service. I also have to hold myself to the same standard.
Best,
Steve
Original Message:
Sent: 2/10/2024 10:09:00 AM
From: Bill Ballard
Subject: RE: Initial experience with Pianosens
Steven went: We cannot use an ETD to test how good that ETD is. Collecting data and making measurements with the ETD, we have no real point of reference as a higher level of standard.
I'd further suggest that there is no point in employing PianoSens' data to see which ETD made better (more musical) use of it. It would require common settings among all. PianoLab, which I've been using for 9 years now, does have two specific settings: 1.) the partial to be given the greatest weight for the notes in each octave (in my choice, the partial involved in the interval being tuned single,double,triple octaves, P12), and 2.) the highest partial to be included in what the algorithm works with (not really necessary because, given inharmonicity). I have not idea what other ETDs may offer for settings, but even if these aren't "user-friendly" (read, dumbed down) a true equivalence among all ETDs is probably not achievable.
And what would be the purpose of using PianoSens data to choose the best ETD. One should really make that judgement by ear, and in particular on a tuning of a Baldwin Howard Spinet. PIanoSens has no special role here, nor in the voicing process. The ear, essentially a mic, has to make this judgement based on all the ancillary noise that PianoSens eliminates from the data used to calculate a tuning.
------------------------------
William Ballard RPT
WBPS
Saxtons River VT
802-869-9107
"Our lives contain a thousand springs
and dies if one be gone
Strange that a harp of a thousand strings
should keep in tune so long."
...........Dr. Watts, "The Continental Harmony,1774
Original Message:
Sent: 02-10-2024 01:16
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
Hi David,
That was a great letter you wrote above! After a few tunings, it becomes second nature and does not take extra time. I think Paul McCloud is up to 300 tunings now with it. He's a human machine tuning 20 piano per week. By the way, it's not .01 cents, it's .1. It comes across with a lot more power in the attack because everything is lined up in phase and frequency, assuming you have good string leveling. Once you hear it, you can never unhear it.
It will be hard to achieve that level of accuracy without the freeze function as in PianoScope. This is because of the non-linearity of the hammer and string produces frequency drift after the attack so your choice of where to tune is arbitrary and inconsistent. I hope that the freeze function becomes standard than all ETD's. It was the first issue for me to tackle. Without it, we have absolutely no time reference to catch the frequency drift.
The other aspect of accuracy is more accurately, measuring the IH. The better the IH, the better, the overall result. You saw my posting on how good the IH curve looks and how well the numbers lined up from MATLAB analysis.
It's goning to be very difficult for the Accutuner and other single partial ETD makers to hold a candle to the capability this opens up. I'm already seeing that single partial ETD's do not gain as much benefit because of their inherent limitations.
We cannot use an ETD to test how good that ETD is. Collecting data and making measurements with the ETD, we have no real point of reference as a higher level of standard. Of course I do not expect piano tuners to make .wav file recordings and analyze them in MATLAB to test an ETD. But I'm doing this. Some of the ETD makers have MATLAB and I'm sure they've done some internal testing. We cannot afford to live in a world anymore where someone with a vested financial interest says, "Take my word for it!" I have to live up to that standard myself, so I have to test and collect the data for the sensor under very controlled conditions.
I am a life learner, and I continue to learn new things about this. Of course I'm addressing the practical issues so that they can be used with minimal hassles. The early first users are giving great feedback. People are going to have to change their technique but so far I do not believe it will slow them down unless they have to tune less than 45 mins. Even if they're under that much time pressure, if they're in a noisy environment, this is a slam dunk. Everyone should be benefiting immediately in the upper half of the piano with this. I am surprised myself at the benefits in the lower register with the upper partials, because they are also higher frequencies!
I have a day job as an engineering research consultant, so every time I work on this, it takes me away from my main job but I'm doing it because I feel it needs to be done. I almost feel like it's a community service I have to do.
Respectfully,
Steve
Original Message:
Sent: 2/10/2024 12:48:00 AM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: Initial experience with Pianosens
Steven, please don't misunderstand me. I can see the benefits of the sensor in hearing through the noise and fillers produced by the soundboard, and the problems associated with microphone placement. Probably the biggest problem with ETDs currently is the stability of the display. While this is mostly a problem in the extremes of the piano, it can be a problem in other sections of the piano as well. Here, I am in total agreement and support of your research and findings. Interestingly, the way around that display problem is to turn down the sensitivity of the microphone or dumb it down, which of course is moving in the opposite direction what we ultimately are seeking which is a more accurate rendering via more accurate listening
The issues for me are more practical than theoretical. Tuning to .01 cents is probably not really perceivable. It reminds me of those who think they are balancing an action to the 10th of a gram. That happens to be what digital gram scales are calibrated to but the margin of error in measuring static weight, such as balance weight, far exceeds that and so anybody who thinks they're actually balancing an action to the 10th of the gram is kidding themselves. A device which accurately measures to .01 cents is impressive but it's a questionable how necessary that is in order to render a quality tuning or if that doesn't exceed the margin of error that's inherent in our ability to control the tuning lever, ultimately.
The other issue of practicality is speed in addition to all the hardware that's required to tune the piano with this device. There is the ETD itself, there is the microphone that needs to be moved, I don't know if the microphone does the muting of the strings that are not being listened to for you as you move it, but if it doesn't, then that means there's another mute or two involved. Then there is the converter, or whatever you call it, that's also an added drain on the iPhone or iPad batter. But other than that, I have no doubt that it renders a more accurate reading of pitch. Is it worth it? I don't know yet.
By the way, I'm not surprised you're getting a lot of resistance from the traditionalists who haven't even been able to adopt the use of any ETD much less something as high-tech as this. There are those who will never accept electronic tuning or anything related to it. To me that's being closed to developments and technology that actually are a real benefit on many different levels, which I won't elaborate on here and have been argued ad nauseum on countless threads. But I am not surprised, nor if I were you, would I be dissuaded by the Luddites. My father enjoyed using a slide rule because that's what he learned to do calculations on, but it was hardly more efficient or accurate than what modern electronics provide. Efficiency and accuracy are important for those who are interested in providing the best service at the best value (meaning time) and electronics can be a real benefit there.
Again, for me the question is one of practicality and general utility for many of the pianos that people typically work on. Well, I'm on board with the idea that electronics can be a real benefit to what we do and can enhance our aural and artistic skills, I do wonder where the point of diminishing returns lies, and whether this doesn't cross that threshold. I don't really need any additional convincing of the greater level of accuracy. I think that's pretty apparent from your descriptions, research and from any kind of reasonable thought experiment that one does without a clear and, perhaps, self serving bias.
So I continue to find your work interesting and I'm somewhat surprised (but not really) by the resistance. After all, it's just data, and data has no ulterior motive. But that idea is difficult for people to accept sometimes, especially if it threatens them. Unfortunately, this seems to be true in arenas outside of piano tuning.
------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
Original Message:
Sent: 02-09-2024 14:04
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
David,
I am engaged in research with a retired MIT professor friend of mine, as we are looking at the difficulties in getting the accurate center frequencies of weak partials in the spectrum due to microphone placement variances. While the frequencies are not changing, our ability to resolve them with the most advanced frequency analysis is difficult and causes errors no matter how good our algorithms are, this is not the case with the sensor. This results in deviations as seen in the ETD.
Steve
Original Message:
Sent: 2/9/2024 1:28:00 PM
From: David Love
Subject: RE: Initial experience with Pianosens
I think this gets a bit complicated as the harmonics that are measured vary from ETD to ETD. Some use single harmonic sampling some use multiple. So the Pianosens, while able to more accurately "hear" the harmonics produced by the string has no influence one what RCT or Verituner or SAT are programmed to focus on. A harder hammer changes the balance of partials in the tonal spectrum, but it doesn't change the frequency of the partials even if it causes our wetware us to focus on different partials than it otherwise might.
The purpose and benefit of Pianosens is to eliminate the filtering and distortion effects of the soundboard which is what a conventional microphone system is hearing. Instead , it is listening to the string before the soundboard gets involved. So I think this is chasing the untamed ornithoid, as it were (i.e. the wild goose).
------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
Original Message:
Sent: 02-08-2024 21:52
From: Parker Leigh
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
I would like to see a detailed study using PianoSens of the effects of lacquer and other chemicals on tone production and partial amplitude
------------------------------
Parker Leigh RPT
Winchester VA
(540) 722-3865
Original Message:
Sent: 02-08-2024 17:57
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
We now no longer can live in a world where anyone should say, "Take my word for it." This is the past world of the ETD industry. By what measure, objectively, should we evaluate? None of us are our own best judges of our objectivity, including yours-truly. There are tests engineers can make and should publish as I did last night on Pianotech on the IH measurements vs the app. Today I got a big 'Thank You' from one of the app makers with whom I newly started communicating. Yet another app maker thanked me for proposing the IH measurement method objective in Matlab. I don't expect piano tuners to be engineers and use Matlab, of course. I am thankful for these two new relationships just starting with app makers. I hope to make more. It is a 'labor of love' for me, a 'community service' because I have another 'day job' as an engineer, so I have virtually no economic interest in this, but I love to teach, so for me it is all about the teaching aspect, things that cannot be found in the literature that are better articulated and with better methods that some may choose to adopt, and that is 'thrilling' to me!
Best,
Steve
------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101
Original Message:
Sent: 02-08-2024 11:57
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Initial experience with Pianosens
I've had my Pianosens device for a few days. My initial impression is that it's highly accurate and does what the developer claims. Of course being primarily an analog/aural tuner, my focus is primarily on unison tuning. However I am not infantile when it comes to ETD's. I have Tunelab and Pianometer on my phone device and am "reasonably" secure in using either one.
One of the stumbling blocks I've had over the years with these things is jitteriness of the display (especially Pianometer, which I otherwise see as a remarkably simple and quick tool in the marketplace). Tunelab tends to take a long time in registering and displaying the info I want. It irks mebthat I have to wait a half second or more before it even "speaks" to me with a display when I can hear it instantly.
Okay...Pianosense goes a long way toward solving both of these issues. I am amazed at how clear and stable the input (and thus the output) is, as well as the speed of the response. Both applications became remarkably easy to read with the sensor, almost making it a joy. So that's a big plus if you're using either of these. I suspect it will be similar with other applications but time and experience will tell. Right now it's good enough for me.
I'm already a darned good unison tuner, however I quickly noticed an improvement using Tunelab and Pianosens in unison tuning. The ability to tune the left and right strings ACCURATELY to the device and then aurally adding the middle string was an unusually pleasant experience, particularly when there is an aberrant "false" beat in one of the strings. Several notes that I struggled with on this particular piano (when completely aurally) came together surprisingly nicely when the device was used. WITHOUT the sensor the false wave registered visually on the display. WITH the sensor it did not show, enabling me to be more accurate about it and better at finding the sweet spot for the middle string.
I'm not on board with tuning unisons to within .1ct tolerance (as in Pianoscope), but since I successfully demonstrated to myself that I can improve my overall performance with the sensor, I'm on it. It will of course take more getting used to, but I plan to make good use of it.
NH Chapter meeting Feb 12th will focus on this device and anyone is welcome to plug it into their device of choice and play with it. I'm not yet expert with it but in time it should prove to be a valuable tool (ESPECIALLY in a noisy environment). And repeatability is clearly improved as well since the frequencies picked up are free from outside distortion.
Ready to hear from anyone else who may have it as well.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
------------------------------