Pianotech

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Tremaine,

I would not ordinarily want to state my experience and resume in both tech and music. That being said, I have to resort to something real and substantial. We are what we have documented in our lives. It gives us a platform and track record to put a stake in the ground. I am uncomfortable stating my resume, actually. I would rather not do that. I would rather that the data I have presented speak for itself. The greater experts have listened and agree. These guys are showing their peers their utter stubbornness, for if the experts would have made the same uninformed arguments they would not be experts. They know better. These guys just don't.

if they weren't trolls under the bridge, they would take me up on my offer for a zoom session. They would respect that far greater expert tuner gurus have taken the time to try and confirm. They will not. They would have to eat humble pie. They cannot afford it now. They don't want the challenge, they know they will get smoked by objectivity and their only defense is their own greatness of their profound god-like golden ear. You and they all underestimate my professional music background and I doubt their golden ear can compete either. They have nothing to fall back on but their own self esteem before their fellow trolls. They can't challenge me on technology nor on music. Again, believe me, I don't like to resort to my abilities and track record of world-class accomplishments in both fields, but what more can I do?

Steve

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Thank you, Tremaine. I think that if Mr. Norsworthy would take the time to actually read our comments, instead of apparently only scanning them for negative interpretation, he would be hard pressed to find any that actually question the validity of the data he is posting. If he had he would realize that it was not me that proposed the tune-off. I, personally, have repeatedly commented in the positive about what he has created, and I have applauded his efforts and diligence in his process. I believe that Pianosens really is a great piece of laboratory invention. The ONLY thing I may be guilty of is questioning his methods of promotion and his inability to allow real world testing, in real world situations. NOBODY here is out to "crucify" him at any level. We are not trolls hiding under the bridge looking for his mistakes. He says he has a large number of people that have purchased Pianosens. Great! I mean, really. Great! Please invite them to participate in this conversation and tell us of their experiences in using Pianosens, in the field, on whatever ETD they may be using. Every one of us here wants to learn and experience new ways of approaching our job. That's why we're here. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Mr. Norsworthy can learn to stop being so defensive, and that he eventually comes down off his high-horse and learns to communicate with us as a fellow technician and not an I'm-better-than-you-are, ego driven scientist trying to tell us we're all wrong in our approach, as I'm sure that is not his intent.

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Geoff, 

If you really wanted to learn about the sensor, you would again and again accept the zoom offer. You refuse.

I also bet you refuse to the tune-off challenge by Paul. You would just get crushed and smoked by any standard of measurement. Your old-school system will get crushed by the new younger generation to come.

The world's greatest chess player gets smoked to day by an iPhone-based chess program. Great analogy. 

How did I introduce PianoSens to the world's top tuners? By doing a zoom session. And I quote them, "Steve, I agree with 100% of what you present." Each one ordered the device thereafter.

Geoff, are you in their league? Heck no. Now you just double down in your stubbornness and you can't dig out.

Again, I just can't thank you enough for this. My sales go up the more you do it. Got three orders yesterday and many were watching the threads. Today I got a huge statement at NAMM from a top tuner.

Enough said.

Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 11:54:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Thank you, Tremaine. I think that if Mr. Norsworthy would take the time to actually read our comments, instead of apparently only scanning them for negative interpretation, he would be hard pressed to find any that actually question the validity of the data he is posting. If he had he would realize that it was not me that proposed the tune-off. I, personally, have repeatedly commented in the positive about what he has created, and I have applauded his efforts and diligence in his process. I believe that Pianosens really is a great piece of laboratory invention. The ONLY thing I may be guilty of is questioning his methods of promotion and his inability to allow real world testing, in real world situations. NOBODY here is out to "crucify" him at any level. We are not trolls hiding under the bridge looking for his mistakes. He says he has a large number of people that have purchased Pianosens. Great! I mean, really. Great! Please invite them to participate in this conversation and tell us of their experiences in using Pianosens, in the field, on whatever ETD they may be using. Every one of us here wants to learn and experience new ways of approaching our job. That's why we're here. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Mr. Norsworthy can learn to stop being so defensive, and that he eventually comes down off his high-horse and learns to communicate with us as a fellow technician and not an I'm-better-than-you-are, ego driven scientist trying to tell us we're all wrong in our approach, as I'm sure that is not his intent.

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Steven

I have a couple of questions. The technology sounds interesting albeit somewhat burdensome. Having yet another device to move along the strings of the piano for most applications might be impractical.

My questions are:

1. how does the sensor device compare when you simply use, say, a higher quality microphone attached to the phone/ipad/computer combined with your software application
2. Does the sensor device have Bluetooth potential so it doesn't require a physical (wire) connection?
3. do you have any kind of printout on cents deviation data when you compare say a cell phone microphone with your device so that one can see just exactly what the delta is note for note?

I do want to comment that I think the questions people are asking are legitimate especially when considering time and money investment in a new technology.  No one doubts your credentials, though we all know, if you know the studies, that "perfect pitch" is not that perfect, certainly not perfect enough to tune a piano by. And accomplished musicians are not always the best judge of how a piano should be tuned. I have several symphony level violinists that I tune for who think the piano is a diabolical instrument no matter how you slice it, or tune it. Show me a pianist who can take a pencil out of the action and I will be impressed. But more than that, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar FWIW. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2024 00:05
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Geoff, 

If you really wanted to learn about the sensor, you would again and again accept the zoom offer. You refuse.

I also bet you refuse to the tune-off challenge by Paul. You would just get crushed and smoked by any standard of measurement. Your old-school system will get crushed by the new younger generation to come.

The world's greatest chess player gets smoked to day by an iPhone-based chess program. Great analogy. 

How did I introduce PianoSens to the world's top tuners? By doing a zoom session. And I quote them, "Steve, I agree with 100% of what you present." Each one ordered the device thereafter.

Geoff, are you in their league? Heck no. Now you just double down in your stubbornness and you can't dig out.

Again, I just can't thank you enough for this. My sales go up the more you do it. Got three orders yesterday and many were watching the threads. Today I got a huge statement at NAMM from a top tuner.

Enough said.

Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 11:54:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Thank you, Tremaine. I think that if Mr. Norsworthy would take the time to actually read our comments, instead of apparently only scanning them for negative interpretation, he would be hard pressed to find any that actually question the validity of the data he is posting. If he had he would realize that it was not me that proposed the tune-off. I, personally, have repeatedly commented in the positive about what he has created, and I have applauded his efforts and diligence in his process. I believe that Pianosens really is a great piece of laboratory invention. The ONLY thing I may be guilty of is questioning his methods of promotion and his inability to allow real world testing, in real world situations. NOBODY here is out to "crucify" him at any level. We are not trolls hiding under the bridge looking for his mistakes. He says he has a large number of people that have purchased Pianosens. Great! I mean, really. Great! Please invite them to participate in this conversation and tell us of their experiences in using Pianosens, in the field, on whatever ETD they may be using. Every one of us here wants to learn and experience new ways of approaching our job. That's why we're here. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Mr. Norsworthy can learn to stop being so defensive, and that he eventually comes down off his high-horse and learns to communicate with us as a fellow technician and not an I'm-better-than-you-are, ego driven scientist trying to tell us we're all wrong in our approach, as I'm sure that is not his intent.

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Hi David, and good questions I can answer!

1) It takes less time to move the sensor to the next unison set than it does to insert a mute... about 1 sec. No one so far thinks it takes any time or fuss. It just takes a new habit to form.

2) I tried wireless in the early phase of prototyping, and Paul McCloud did various wireless configs, and it is more of a pain than a wire. It makes the holder heavy with a wireless transmitter and battery, and the signal-to-noise or fidelity really suffers. I have this cool little eye hook wire bridge I ship with it that magnetically attaches to the iron frame and keeps the wire taut. It is a non distraction with a little practice.

3) One has to do a different IH for the mic vs the sensor, so it is hard to switch quickly, and I have done parallel recordings, and it is a dramatic difference in both jitter (mic) and steady (sensor) and the differences are sometimes as much as 2 cents when you move the mic around and replay the same note. Carl Lieberman saw 5 cents at times. On a great piano and great mic and a lucky position, it is not that different. So overall there is a large 'statistical overall spread with the mic, and not with the sensor position.

I can take a phone call or quick zoom. If you have some PTG peers in your local chapter I can do a group zoom. I am doing one for Linda Kay's group in the Bay Area soon. Are you in her group?

Best,

Steve

619-964-0101

steven@rf2bits.com

Steven

I have a couple of questions. The technology sounds interesting albeit somewhat burdensome. Having yet another device to move along the strings of the piano for most applications might be impractical.

My questions are:

1. how does the sensor device compare when you simply use, say, a higher quality microphone attached to the phone/ipad/computer combined with your software application
2. Does the sensor device have Bluetooth potential so it doesn't require a physical (wire) connection?
3. do you have any kind of printout on cents deviation data when you compare say a cell phone microphone with your device so that one can see just exactly what the delta is note for note?

I do want to comment that I think the questions people are asking are legitimate especially when considering time and money investment in a new technology.  No one doubts your credentials, though we all know, if you know the studies, that "perfect pitch" is not that perfect, certainly not perfect enough to tune a piano by. And accomplished musicians are not always the best judge of how a piano should be tuned. I have several symphony level violinists that I tune for who think the piano is a diabolical instrument no matter how you slice it, or tune it. Show me a pianist who can take a pencil out of the action and I will be impressed. But more than that, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar FWIW. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2024 00:05
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Geoff, 

If you really wanted to learn about the sensor, you would again and again accept the zoom offer. You refuse.

I also bet you refuse to the tune-off challenge by Paul. You would just get crushed and smoked by any standard of measurement. Your old-school system will get crushed by the new younger generation to come.

The world's greatest chess player gets smoked to day by an iPhone-based chess program. Great analogy. 

How did I introduce PianoSens to the world's top tuners? By doing a zoom session. And I quote them, "Steve, I agree with 100% of what you present." Each one ordered the device thereafter.

Geoff, are you in their league? Heck no. Now you just double down in your stubbornness and you can't dig out.

Again, I just can't thank you enough for this. My sales go up the more you do it. Got three orders yesterday and many were watching the threads. Today I got a huge statement at NAMM from a top tuner.

Enough said.

Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 11:54:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Thank you, Tremaine. I think that if Mr. Norsworthy would take the time to actually read our comments, instead of apparently only scanning them for negative interpretation, he would be hard pressed to find any that actually question the validity of the data he is posting. If he had he would realize that it was not me that proposed the tune-off. I, personally, have repeatedly commented in the positive about what he has created, and I have applauded his efforts and diligence in his process. I believe that Pianosens really is a great piece of laboratory invention. The ONLY thing I may be guilty of is questioning his methods of promotion and his inability to allow real world testing, in real world situations. NOBODY here is out to "crucify" him at any level. We are not trolls hiding under the bridge looking for his mistakes. He says he has a large number of people that have purchased Pianosens. Great! I mean, really. Great! Please invite them to participate in this conversation and tell us of their experiences in using Pianosens, in the field, on whatever ETD they may be using. Every one of us here wants to learn and experience new ways of approaching our job. That's why we're here. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Mr. Norsworthy can learn to stop being so defensive, and that he eventually comes down off his high-horse and learns to communicate with us as a fellow technician and not an I'm-better-than-you-are, ego driven scientist trying to tell us we're all wrong in our approach, as I'm sure that is not his intent.

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Thanks Steven, yes I'm in that group so I'll try and attend that one.  I'll ask Linda about the schedule.  So if I understand correctly, you're not using mutes at all and your using the sensor to tune each one of the unisons?  Maybe it's in the thread some where (I haven't read it all) but can explain now  that works or direct me to where I can review the "user instructions" if possible. 

I use an iphone on which I currently run RCT, so what is the connection?  Does it accommodate a lightening connector?  You mentioned USB,which of course the iphone does not have.  So how does that work.  

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 01-27-2024 00:43
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi David, and good questions I can answer!

1) It takes less time to move the sensor to the next unison set than it does to insert a mute... about 1 sec. No one so far thinks it takes any time or fuss. It just takes a new habit to form.

2) I tried wireless in the early phase of prototyping, and Paul McCloud did various wireless configs, and it is more of a pain than a wire. It makes the holder heavy with a wireless transmitter and battery, and the signal-to-noise or fidelity really suffers. I have this cool little eye hook wire bridge I ship with it that magnetically attaches to the iron frame and keeps the wire taut. It is a non distraction with a little practice.

3) One has to do a different IH for the mic vs the sensor, so it is hard to switch quickly, and I have done parallel recordings, and it is a dramatic difference in both jitter (mic) and steady (sensor) and the differences are sometimes as much as 2 cents when you move the mic around and replay the same note. Carl Lieberman saw 5 cents at times. On a great piano and great mic and a lucky position, it is not that different. So overall there is a large 'statistical overall spread with the mic, and not with the sensor position.

I can take a phone call or quick zoom. If you have some PTG peers in your local chapter I can do a group zoom. I am doing one for Linda Kay's group in the Bay Area soon. Are you in her group?

Best,

Steve

619-964-0101

steven@rf2bits.com

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2024 13:22
From: David Love
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven

I have a couple of questions. The technology sounds interesting albeit somewhat burdensome. Having yet another device to move along the strings of the piano for most applications might be impractical.

My questions are:

1. how does the sensor device compare when you simply use, say, a higher quality microphone attached to the phone/ipad/computer combined with your software application
2. Does the sensor device have Bluetooth potential so it doesn't require a physical (wire) connection?
3. do you have any kind of printout on cents deviation data when you compare say a cell phone microphone with your device so that one can see just exactly what the delta is note for note?

I do want to comment that I think the questions people are asking are legitimate especially when considering time and money investment in a new technology.  No one doubts your credentials, though we all know, if you know the studies, that "perfect pitch" is not that perfect, certainly not perfect enough to tune a piano by. And accomplished musicians are not always the best judge of how a piano should be tuned. I have several symphony level violinists that I tune for who think the piano is a diabolical instrument no matter how you slice it, or tune it. Show me a pianist who can take a pencil out of the action and I will be impressed. But more than that, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar FWIW. 

------------------------------
David Love RPT
www.davidlovepianos.com
davidlovepianos@comcast.net
415 407 8320

Original Message:
Sent: 01-26-2024 00:05
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Geoff, 

If you really wanted to learn about the sensor, you would again and again accept the zoom offer. You refuse.

I also bet you refuse to the tune-off challenge by Paul. You would just get crushed and smoked by any standard of measurement. Your old-school system will get crushed by the new younger generation to come.

The world's greatest chess player gets smoked to day by an iPhone-based chess program. Great analogy. 

How did I introduce PianoSens to the world's top tuners? By doing a zoom session. And I quote them, "Steve, I agree with 100% of what you present." Each one ordered the device thereafter.

Geoff, are you in their league? Heck no. Now you just double down in your stubbornness and you can't dig out.

Again, I just can't thank you enough for this. My sales go up the more you do it. Got three orders yesterday and many were watching the threads. Today I got a huge statement at NAMM from a top tuner.

Enough said.

Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 11:54:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Thank you, Tremaine. I think that if Mr. Norsworthy would take the time to actually read our comments, instead of apparently only scanning them for negative interpretation, he would be hard pressed to find any that actually question the validity of the data he is posting. If he had he would realize that it was not me that proposed the tune-off. I, personally, have repeatedly commented in the positive about what he has created, and I have applauded his efforts and diligence in his process. I believe that Pianosens really is a great piece of laboratory invention. The ONLY thing I may be guilty of is questioning his methods of promotion and his inability to allow real world testing, in real world situations. NOBODY here is out to "crucify" him at any level. We are not trolls hiding under the bridge looking for his mistakes. He says he has a large number of people that have purchased Pianosens. Great! I mean, really. Great! Please invite them to participate in this conversation and tell us of their experiences in using Pianosens, in the field, on whatever ETD they may be using. Every one of us here wants to learn and experience new ways of approaching our job. That's why we're here. I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping that Mr. Norsworthy can learn to stop being so defensive, and that he eventually comes down off his high-horse and learns to communicate with us as a fellow technician and not an I'm-better-than-you-are, ego driven scientist trying to tell us we're all wrong in our approach, as I'm sure that is not his intent.

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 23:16
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Steven, I do not agree with your first two paragraphs. This is just my observation but it appears that you may take some comments a little too personally and when you single people out it can seem condescending. You are an engineer and scientist. I think Ed Sutton's comments were a subtle attempt to describe piano techs as people of all levels of educations who are prone to question things. I have not seen anything in any of these posts that appears as trolling. Sure, there may have been a comment about using this platform for product promotion but so what. However, comments are about both the presentation and interpretation. I'll bet that everyone who has weighed in on any of the PianoSens threads is truly interested in PianoSens. I am trying to express the above comments in a positive way.

As the subject of additional videos and Inharmonicity sample repeatability, I will post more specifics about this later. Hope you are having fun at NAMM!

Respectfully,

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 22:18
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Tremaine,

We should let Geoff, Horace, Ed, Loren, Nathan, Ed, and the pre-assumers do their thing and ignore them. They would just love to find one little thing to hang me on, one thing clarified later but taken out of context to crucify me on. One of them listed tried. They won't succeed. They only make themselves look bad to other fair minded people. I remindes me how the Pharisees tried their darnedest to trip up Jesus at every turn, accuse him of somehow healing the blind on the Sabbath, and saying he broke the law. Most people who come up with a game-changing invention get more naysayers than not, more arrows in the back. It goes with the territory. 

They have an agenda of being the trolls under the Pianotech bridge to speak for themselves. They are deathly afraid of a new tech showing them that all their decades of assumptions are now exposed to high tech scrutiny. It disturbs them. The more they bark, the more sales I get, so let them nip at the heels. If they really were honest, they would take me up on my offer to have an adult conversation on zoom. They are afraid. They want to impress the other trolls how they can take down someone. Again the trolls under the bridge.

As for other apps, soon I will have people testing it on Pianometer. I don't have any Veritune customers.

Acoustic jitter and ISI (Intersymbol Interference) is absolutely real, regardless of the app. How the app deals with it is something I don't have any control over. If the app suppresses it, it may not have enough bandwidth to properly make a good measurement. If it lets the jitter and ISI come through with plenty of bandwidth and FFT accuracy, then it indeed will cause chatter of the indicator.

If they understood 'variance' from the acoustics, they would fundamentally understand PianoSens and the underlying tech behind it. They would want to see the class slides. They would want to tune to a higher standard of invariant repeatability and quit all the sloshing around in ambiguous self satisfaction of 'their superior subjective ear.' What arrogance to think 'their ear' is the gold standard. What intelligent person is ever going to buy that argument?

GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. Another expression, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sal's ear."

Who do I really want as a customer? Some people we really do NOT want. I have only had one customer so far who was not positive, and it was his own bad method of tuning, he used an unorthodox tuning technique of extremely fast rapid re-attack. I posted how that is effectively a square wave modulation of the piano tone at the repetition rate, how if you have 3 strikes per second, you smear the center frequencies of each partial by 3 Hz so I proved it analytically how it causes spectral smearing. He did not care. 

If the wrong people buy PianoSens, they will just create a case for smearing the tech as well as smearing the pitch! LOL.

Best,
Steve


Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 9:11:00 PM
From: Tremaine Parsons
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

I don't think Geoff is trying to impress anyone. Just participating in a discussion. I would like to see some demos with other Apps Like Verituner, Tunelab, or PiaTune. Maybe PianSens will sample a note in Vetituner or Tunlab faster. I have noticed that PiaTune, and Pianoscope do not have absolute repeatability when sampling a note which may not be possible under any circumstance. Pianoscope repeatability seems to be quite close but the Inh numbers differ.  However, maybe PianoSens gets repeatability even closer. BTW, Steven N, I don't think anyone following these posts doubts your engineering and signal processing credentials. PianoSens is a very interesting piece of hardware.

------------------------------
Tremaine Parsons RPT
Georgetown CA
(530) 333-9299

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 20:23
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Tell that to Rick Baldassin and Carl Lieberman. LOL.

Seriously, Geoff? Should I be listening to the world's best piano tuners or you?

Geoff, whom are you trying to impress? I have offered you and your fellow critics a zoom call to discuss. Perhaps you are afraid of us? I believe you are deathly afraid of a revolutionary tech that is a game changer. If you are in LA, go over to the Fazioli booth and see Rick Baldassin and me tomorrow (Friday). 

Geoff, if you and Horace and Loren are so deathly afraid of it and so committed to its destruction by your 'expert' opinion having not even tried it, having not even heard the class, then why not just ignore this and let others try it themselves without your destructive inexperienced opinions? Hopefully people will just not only see through your scheme, they will do the opposite and buy it. It reminds me of how the political lefties keep trying to use illegal tactics to take down a strong political opponent and the harder they try the stronger the opponent becomes! You know who!

What a waste of time.

Steve

Steve is caught between the demons. Fortunately Michael the Archangel is greater than the demons.

Yes, some don't want to know the truth, backed up by experts greater than themselves. Some people just bark like little snippy dogs. 

My zoom offer still stands. 

Original Message:
Sent: 1/25/2024 7:24:00 PM
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: RE: Psycho acoustics

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 13:41
From: Paul McCloud
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

------------------------------
Paul McCloud, RPT
Accutone Piano Service
www.AccutonePianoService.com
pavadasa@gmail.com

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.

Paul and Steve --

How do you guys do it? Once again you have both managed to completely sidestep a valid question or request for a valid test that we piano techs can both understand and actually use to improve the service we provide to our customers. Paul basically agreed that all the things that Loren was looking for could be proved in the testing scenario that he proposed, and then spent the rest of his response trying to convince us that such a test would be meaningless because the graphs and the numbers are enough. Steve, once again, is telling us that his graphs and math should be enough to convince us that his device would improve our tunings, but also is unwilling to do a fair comparison test, instead opting for a Zoom call, that he can control, so he can continue his hard sell. 

I agree with Ed that perhaps a lesser piano than a high end concert grand should be used for Loren's proposed test as it places the test into a real world situation. Without a demonstration of how Steve's device actually performs, in the field, with a full tuning on an average piano, all he has managed to do is convince us that it is accurate to within so many decimal points on a single note in an ultimate top-of-the-line piano. This is not how we tune pianos, so I ask, what are they afraid of?

I am of the opinion that Steve's device actually does all he says it can do. I am also of the opinion that we piano techs should not be the target audience. He has created a very fine piece of lab equipment that works great in the lab, but should be marketed not to us, but to piano designers, manufacturers and rebuilders. And since it is a piece of lab equipment, he should be charging a lot more for it. Just because. 

Hi Loren:

Although I'm not Steven, I'll jump in here.  In my view, it's not about the ETD vs Aural tuning that's being debated, but which is your suggestion.  If you use an ETD, the others are not necessarily going to produce exactly the same tuning, even if you specify a particular style, ie., 12th, octave, or anything else.  Same with aural tuning, if you use a different octave stretch.  There will be various choices to be made.  Then of course the audience will like one or the other for various reasons of taste.  As long as the tuning is done by an experienced technician, it will sound good.  All this to say that there will not be any real benefit of this kind of comparison, as it will be at the whim of the audience members with no real standard to compare to.  You could have a comparison of various tuning "styles", whether a 12th tuning or regular octave sounds better on a particular piano.  That would be beneficial for a technician who is unsure what style to choose.  The sensor really has nothing to do with this, except to provide a more accurate way of using an ETD to execute a tuning of whatever choice.  All of the ETD's are very good at producing an accurate tuning, except for the fact that they use a microphone which inherently introduces errors due to placement and unwanted resonances from the room, aliquats, undampened strings, etc.  That's what this sensor is all about, nothing more.  It's not a separate app, and has no active components inside of it as has been speculated. 

The sensor has also opened the door to other discoveries also, which is being discussed here.  Using the sensor, Steve is able to make graphs of string behavior, which he analyzes using MatLab.  For example, the proof that there really is no "missing fundamental" in the low bass of a piano.  Although the sensor is actually very simple, the design is optimized for use in pianos, and it has opened possibilities that were not available previously without it.  Most of us are probably clueless to what the graphs are showing, unless you happen to be trained in wave analysis and signal processing.  That's the advantage that Steven is offering us.  He can show what is actually happening, and prove or disprove what we've suspected about string behavior.

Yes, it is all about the music, and tuning is part of that.  Unless you're Keith Richards, tuning your guitar is part of playing music on it.  If you're performing, don't you want the most accurate tuning possible on it?  If it's off, the audience is going to notice.  The same thing on a piano, and yes you do have to check it with your ears even if you use an ETD.  The sensor is simply providing a way for more accuracy when you're using an ETD.  It won't get rid of false beats, but it will help identify if the beating is coming from ambient sound or within the piano itself in the soundboard and bridges.  It won't solve mismatched strings, but if they are not too far off, you can use your ETD to average them.  Those who use an ETD know that sometimes there are jittery displays, which is frustrating.  The sensor can eliminate some of this, but not all of it.  The usual remedies of bridge pin manipulation, string leveling and mating, etc. are all helpful when there are false beats that are coming from the piano itself, and it usually results in a more steady readout on your device. 

What is not intuitive is how these ETD's work.  They are more or less like a black box, and how they work to calculate the tuning targets is proprietary.  Most use an FFT, which determines what the frequencies are of the partials, and uses that in the calculation.  If one or more partials is below a certain threshold, it won't be taken into account in the calculation.  Therefore, if there is any partial that is not being picked up by a microphone, it won't be used, and the result is an error. 

What is up for debate is whether this error is of enough consequence to affect the tuning overall, and whether we or our audience can hear it.  Maybe at an upcoming convention I could demonstrate using the sensor, and y'all can listen for yourselves. 

If your client base is mostly spinets and consoles, using the sensor might be more trouble than it's worth.  If you're tuning for a big venue with major artists playing a grand piano on stage, it can be a big benefit.  Personally, I have had many compliments on their tuning when I used the sensor and Pianoscope.  I do find it helps me, and I use it on every piano I can.  My unisons are cleaner than I've been able to do before, for what it's worth. 

Loren-

A comparison such as you suggest could be done with two Yamaha P-22s.

If a particular tuning method could produce a noticeable improvement in decent quality average home pianos...Bingo!..that could make a big difference in the daily product of many PTG members.

My impression was that Bernhard Stopper's P12 tuning produced that improvement, but perhaps it was my customers' empathic response to my belief.

I would certainly not underestimate the capacity of extremely fine unisons to create a special character of sound in any piano which can be so tuned.

Loren, and all,

In any field there must be test and measurement standards. You get tested for your RPT, you have to get tested for your 'brain/ear' ability which is human ETD! 

Your taste will guaranteed to be different than someone else's. There is no subjective standard. So there must be a device standard. Do you think that Steinway and Yamaha do not have test and measurement standards making their pianos? Do you think that the recording engineering association has test and measurement standards? What planet are we living on? Really!

Now as far as 'it's about the music', you are talking to a former music professor who has perfect pitch (at age 3), who won 2 symphony auditions by age 20, who has high skills in piano, brass, and conducting including choral and instrumental. I am getting just so sick of all this and it tends to make me ill. It consumes too much time and takes me away from my paying customers who are Fortune 500 firms in technology and patent litigation.

If you want a test and measurement standard that is invariant by design, here it is:

• Beyond what the prior art has offered
• Removes the subjectivity by eliminating the variance of the mic acoustic system
• Does not hear the lawn mower and crowd noise around the tuner
• Does not hear the interference of upper register false beats from neighboring resonances in the piano
• Gives more upper partials to the tuner
• Allows the tuner to not have to do ear matching of unisons
• Then this method I provide is for that type of person, who can THEN
• Go make a more beautiful musical sound from the piano.
• How do I know? I am a pianist and my Rachmaninoff Etudes-Tableau and Chopin Nocturnes sound so much better when everything is lined up on the attacks and with clear transparent tone.
• Everyone who has come to my studio and heard the difference, including a world-renowned concert tuner who has tuned for Ashkenazy and Brendel and many more.

Best regards, 

Steve

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101

Original Message:
Sent: 01-25-2024 11:27
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: Psycho acoustics

Doctor Norsworthy:

I am one of the humble piano tuners that Ed Sutton was referring to. I
have followed the posts about your new system and the responses to it,
but certainly not all of them. I don't have the time.

One thing I understand about this business is how subjective it can be.
I am quite certain that customers' responses to my work can depend on
their view of me. I once tuned a piano for a fellow, who then compared
my work to the tuning done in the past by a well-regarded tech in my
area. He said mine was good, but that the other's tuning was excellent.
I also tuned a piano for a local music professor and teacher, who said
that my tuning was better than those done by the same well-regarded
tech. And perhaps both were true - who knows? Maybe for that first
fellow my tuning wasn't as good, and for the music professor I just
happened to be doing a better job that day.

It's all about the music. So I propose that if your new device gives a
superior tuning, it should be tested in a reasonably controlled, blind
situation. This isn't the only way to do this, but here is the way I
thought of: Put two identical high-quality grands on a stage. Maybe
Steinway Bs or Yamaha C7s. Have a very competent tuner tune both of
them using the conventional method he or she prefers for a concert
tuning. Have a pianist perform a few short pieces on each piano for an
audience. Then have someone tune only one of the pianos using your
equipment and method, and have the other tuned again by the conventional
method. This tuner should not have any contact with you until after the
whole operation is over. Invite the same audience to listen to the same
pieces played by the same pianist. DO NOT tell anyone which piano has
had the special tuning - not you, not the audience or anyone else
involved, although it would be appropriate to tell the audience that one
piano has been given some extra work in an attempt to see if it produces
a better performance. And then invite the members of the audience to
judge the quality of the musical performance of each piano.

It is imperative that you do not introduce yourself to the audience
beforehand, and especially important that no one points out which piano
has gotten the special treatment. This is where the subjectivity comes
in. If your personality, the content of your presentation, or simply
interest in new technology invokes a positive response in some people,
they might be biased to judge that the piano that got the special
treatment actually sounds better. Or if they react negatively, it might
bias them against it.

All the graphs, data, technical papers, testimonials by respected
technicians - none of that matters to me. It's all about the sound
while performing music. It would have to be a live performance, not a
recording. And then after all this, even if I was there in person and
judged your method to be superior, I would have to make a business
decision about whether it's worth the investment, not to mention the
extra time it would take to get all the strings to within 0.1 cent of
each other. Most pianos I tune are in homes, churches etc. that I visit
at most twice a year. I know that any added benefit of extremely
fine-tuned unisons would not last long enough to matter for these kinds
of jobs. Concert tunings are about 3% of my work.