Pianotech

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Roger,

I appreciate your affirmation of my analysis. It required a significant effort to develop the signal processing software needed to extract this information. I look forward to meeting you in Reno. I will be at the PianoSens booth and will have my computer where we can conduct live experiments and extract data off any piano there.

The data was taken on my Fazioli F308. Fazioli's are noted for their clean sound and few false beats. People who have heard my piano have remarked how clear it is, some who have opined already on this thread like Randall Woltz and Paul McCloud who live locally to me and played the instrument. Do you have any experimental data on Fazioli's method of string terminations and pin angles on the bridge that you can share? The first sound file in the recording certainly sounds super clean, and Randall Woltz commented that it ruled out a string termination issue! I made sure with a little tool that the strings were seated well. Have you developed special new IP on string terminations and improvements that you have shared and that you can point us to? 

Best,

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Roger, my 'solution' is to own a Fazioli! Few if any false beats! I am an analyst and not in the business of doing mechanical after-market solutions. I posted the research tool that helps identify the source of the false beats, Mechanical vs Acoustical, and it is the best diagnostic tool I know of. You should try it. Thanks. Steve

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 17:55
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 15:20
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

I watched the video twice, thank you for putting it together. While I'm not going to object to the data shared in the video, I'm struggling with the two sound samples provided (C5).  While the second has a noticeable wobble compared with the first one as noted in the video, neither of them are satisfying my ear. The first example has a clean sounding fundamental (partial 1) but the 3rd partial seems to be beartng 4-5 times per second. When I tune unisons, I am primarily listening to the third partial of the note to judge when my unison is locked in. Does anyone else hear this?

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 18:46
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Roger, my 'solution' is to own a Fazioli! Few if any false beats! I am an analyst and not in the business of doing mechanical after-market solutions. I posted the research tool that helps identify the source of the false beats, Mechanical vs Acoustical, and it is the best diagnostic tool I know of. You should try it. Thanks. Steve

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 17:55
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 15:20
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Steven,

I don't know why I'm hearing the G6 (coincident partial) beating with the C5 unison locked in as it is. If not an audio problem, perhaps an aliquot or higher open string with no damper sympathetically resonating and slightly out of tune, at least at the coincident partial? This is not necessarily a critique of your content or tuning, I'm just trying to figure out what I'm hearing. 

I'll try to get a Wav recording later of C5 on my Yamaha C5. 

One question, and sorry if I've missed this in other content of yours: it seems that most of your testing has taken place on your 308. Have you tested many other instruments and if so, how have the results compared?

Thank you!

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Similarly, I have to question the objectivity of the presentation considering that the chosen note in no way is representing the scale location of the note in Steve's video. This is bothersome to me. It was the first thing that struck me as I was watching the video, considering that the stated intention was to "reproduce" the experiment. 

Needless to say that using mic vs a sensor is another anomaly. If you want to reproduce something you do it the same way. AFTER doing it identically, THEN do it your way. Then we can all see the true differences. 

Not being critical...just observational. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 13:57
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 07:42
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 17:55
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 15:20
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 14:06
From: Peter Grey
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Similarly, I have to question the objectivity of the presentation considering that the chosen note in no way is representing the scale location of the note in Steve's video. This is bothersome to me. It was the first thing that struck me as I was watching the video, considering that the stated intention was to "reproduce" the experiment. 

Needless to say that using mic vs a sensor is another anomaly. If you want to reproduce something you do it the same way. AFTER doing it identically, THEN do it your way. Then we can all see the true differences. 

Not being critical...just observational. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 13:57
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-27-2024 07:42
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 17:55
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 15:20
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Steven N,

Please don't understand my questions to be antagonistic, I assure you they are not. If your assertions about your device are correct, the accuracy in which this would allow pianos to be tuned would be unprecedented in the entirety of the piano's history. With anything new, there can be unintended consequences, both favorable and unfavorable. I'm also wanting to hear from a variety of musicians since this discussion has predominantly been among technicians who do not necessarily represent the desires of musicians. Some questions:

1. Much of the discussion and tuning examples seem to focus on volume potential. Are the partials behaving similarly on the attack of a MF, MP, P or PP dynamic to your F or FF example? To my ears, quiet playing seems to have a more stable pitch at the onset, but of course this could be inaccurate.
2. Is the sensor able to read partials above the fundamental, or do we rely on microphones for that?
3. How are we defining clarity of sound? To my ears, European pianos sound clearer to me. I loved playing jazz on the Bösendorfer at convention last year, I much preferred Chopin and Medtner on the American pianos (a wonderful Mason and Hamlin in particular). In other words, onset clarity wasn't always what I was after on a musical level, but I don't know if there is a fundamental difference in what we are calling clarity.
4. Lastly, the subject of the experiments I've seen were isolated notes. We know that the vibrations of one string will excite other strings to sympathetically resonate when their dampers are lifted, either when other notes being played, by a depressed pedal, or a combination of both. Have you looked at the "moving target" when combinations of strings are simultaneously resonating? 
   
   

I think a lot more studying and experimenting needs to be done before adopting your propositions are superior. Perhaps they are superior, but this should be proven with further experimentation and most importantly, its adoption by musicians who believe it to be a superior sound allowing better self expression on the instrument.

Anthony Willey posted a video on his Pianometer YouTube site refuting many of my findings. Here is the trouble with his refutes:

1) An apples-to-apples comparison should use the same register area, C5 in my video, and not A2 in his video. The lower register is a longer wavelength and more stable. Anthony used the note A2 in the mic variation. The lower the note, the longer the wavelength and the less senstivive to mic placement. Every user of ETD's knows this, how jittery the readings are in the mid- to high register with a mic as compared to the sensor. He should have used C5 or higher.

2) The tuning point in time I explained was more based on the point of reference from POWER and MUSIC. Where is the power the highest? In the first 1 sec after the attack. What does the piano literature do with duration of a single note in isolation 3 seconds later after the attack with no pedal and no other notes? That does not exist in the piano literature. I gave all my reasons both technically and musically. Go back and listen to my explanation. He missed my points.

3) My graphs are all taken from the sensor, which has no hammer noise on the strike, of course. He is capturing the mechanical hammer noise. I am not.

I fully stand behind everything in my video.

Steve

Thank you, Steven, David, and Roger for each of your responses.  I don't have time to answer all of your excellent remarks, but I will make a stab here. 

Steven, I am very much aware of your Pianosens, and believe that you are making a significant contribution to the state of the art.  I must confess that I like it when someone comes in and upsets the apple cart of conventional wisdom.  For persons who practice intellectual honesty, you have made them put on their thinking caps, even when they disagree with you as to its value.  All for the good.

Your Fazioli is a remarkable instrument, I do not think you will find any argument here.  Its clarity is of real value both for your research and demonstrations, and we learn from it.

To me, it is both an asset and a distraction in that it represents the zenith of piano making to a degree that very few instruments can achieve.  The reality of our existence is that we work in a world that is much less tidy, and we must muddle our way through it with in an ever-changing effort to do our best work with what we encounter.  The argument lies in whether tuning the unison to an absolute fidelity to pitch that you advocate yields the best tonal result.     

Your argument for absolute pitch fidelity is very narrowly targeted, and I must confess that I champ at the restraint of the bit.  Elsewhere, Roger has used the term "tonal envelope".  That speaks to the totality of a sounding note from onset to end, and everything that comprises it.  That is a whole lot of things, and it is fantastically interesting to me, if one is interested in making the best possible sounding piano. 

Roger has said that "the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope."  I could not agree more with that statement.  My own experiments tell me that is so, for better and worse.  😊  What is important?  Everything. 

Roger talks about the 360 degree termination clamping at both ends in steel, I have envisioned something like that in a proper tonewood.  (I have not built a model yet).  Roger has hinted that, in ideal terms, the boundary conditions should be identical for each end of the speaking length of the string.  To the degree that we can achieve that through redesign, that would maintain the purity of the originating signal.  The hammer strikes the string and sets it into motion and it organizes its harmonic structure.  Everything that string encounters adds its own artifacts to the signal – the wood surface on the contacting surface at the pin and on top of the bridge – the species of wood, its density, hardness, resistance to crushing, speed of sound.  All these things have their effects.  Where there are pins, the material used, spacing front to back, side to side spacing, diameter, and the notching protocol.  Add to this downbearing and side bearing, it is really complex for something so simple.  With the aid of my friends Tom Thiel and Doug Kirkwood, we designed and built a working model of a pinned design that has 3 pins per string.  We subjected about a dozen people to listening tests which confirmed what our ears were hearing.  The attack was shorter and not as loud, and very quickly resolved into the harmonic structure and remained there thru the duration.  The pitch drifted than would be typical of a two-pin design.  It had a stronger sense of enduring order.  It lacked the droop in pitch that follows the attack, which is so characteristic of the two-pin design.

The two pins per string configuration is a dinosaur.  For all its simplicity, it brings its own set of problems, Fazioli notwithstanding.  Done right, we can hear great beauty from it. 

We haven't even started talking about bridge agraffes….

Steve,

Sorry for the delayed response, I'm dealing with the annual summer STEM student workshop which requires most of my non-piano work.

No, I don't have access to a Fazioli for experimentation and no bridge "data" I can share at this time.  My comments were directed to the question of string termination as to the possible reason for the varying harmonic movements during the few microseconds after attack as illustrated in your graph.

 I believe we think differently, as I approach a problem with the goal of developing a way to correct these anomalies. So far what I see with your latest research is data only. What do you plan to do with the information?

William,

My research strongly suggests – I might even say demonstrates – that the nature of the termination plays a significant role in the tonal envelope and false beat character of a vibrating string.  For example, a string that is terminated on both ends via a 360-degree clamping (such as drilling a hole the same diameter in a piece of steel as the string) will exhibit a different tonal envelope than a string that is terminated in the traditional piano bridge design. Also, keep in mind that a piano string is terminated differently from its opposite ends – capo verses flat bridge.

Lastly, I will demonstrate that the internal stresses in a wire greatly affect the tonal and false beat characteristics. This is evident by using the counter reactive wire bending tool sold by Supply 88 --the tool bends the wire around the bridge pin.

 See me in Reno.

Roger

I am really interested in meeting Roger at the convention. I published a video (link below) months ago and it spurred quite a bit of controversy and discussion. I stand behind it. It shows there are two sources of false beats: One being Acoustic and the other being Mechanical (probably in the bridge termination). I provide a very useful 'tool' for distinguishing between the two sources. Many have confirmed the usefulness and are getting better more accurate tuning resolution from this. I'll demonstrate this live for you at the convention, but the video shows the essence of the issue and the solution to distinguishing the difference.

Link to YouTube Video Below.

https://youtu.be/e_UvfoUevy8

Steve

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-26-2024 12:24
From: William Truitt
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Hello Roger:

i have read your short comments with interest.  I have long paid close attention to bridge terminations in my rebuilding and know how important those terminations are in getting a good pure tone.  I also have an ongoing interest in the stresses and strains that exist in pinned bridges and their relationship to the soundboard and their affect on tone.  I have done some research into alternate pinned designs with tonal characteristics that are somewhat different and promising.

You speak of the effect of string tensions that exist within the string, and their effect on the harmonic (partials) structure.  You call them gyrations.  Why the choice of that particular word?  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  Also elaborate on internal string tensions.  That could mean a lot of different things. 

Steven, forgive me if I am being a bit obtuse.  What do you mean by IP?

------------------------------
William Truitt RPT
Bridgewater NH
(603) 744-2277

Original Message:
Sent: 06-21-2024 11:52
From: Roger Gable
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

In the collective minds of a given discipline there are two levels of thought – knowing and understanding. Steve, your observations are commendable. Now let's take it to the next level. What causes these gyrations in harmonics of such. I believe the unmentioned elephant in the room is the nature of string termination and internal string tensions. I will bring to the upcoming convention a demonstration that internal string tension may be the source of some of these gyrations. See me at the Moondog exhibit booth.

------------------------------
Roger Gable RPT
Gable Piano
Everett WA
(425) 252-5000

Original Message:
Sent: 06-20-2024 22:01
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 6/20/2024 10:01:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Loren,

The "coupling" or "entrainment" action of the bridge structure contains the unison once it is in tune (actually it has a progressive effect when tuning entirely aurally since once the strings get close enough [i.e. about .25 cent or so] the bridge eliminates the audible beat thereby making us believe we've reached zero when in fact we have not [but we're close]). So you're not going to get a "beat" in the unison several seconds after strike (unless of course it's a weird piano). 

What I find very interesting in these tests and graphs is that it shows a significant difference in how the partial structure changes its behavior when coupled (entrained) to the bridge vs sounding singularly. Additionally it clearly points out WHY the sound of a note can be altered by either tuning dead on at zero or slightly spread. We have long known this to be a fact, but precisely why has been a bit of a mystery. Furthermore, both the degree and the pattern of spread changes the way the partials interact and behave within this coupling action of the bridge. 

Tuning the unison as close to zero (as Steve N. AND MANY OTHERS) advocate (past and present) creates the best chance at keeping the unison clean for the longest period of time. This practice also (obviously) has a specific effect on the tone and (as shown) the volume of the initial strike. It also affects the decay envelope of the note in most cases, as does spreading the unison (every .1 cent added changes this decay envelope to some degree). Some of us refer to this as "voicing" the unison, which brings me to what I think is the greatest potential for this kind of research which is that it can help us SEE what our voicing techniques (with needles, etc) are doing (or can be done) to selectively change the partials behavior when the note is struck. If I had this kind of graphic information available to me on the fly I'd be very interested in seeing how I could voice the hammer in specific ways to achieve specific outcomes. At present, no ETD has the "guts" to display this information, but Steve's work shows that it can be done, and I personally find it very interesting and an eye opener. 

The argument about tuning on the attack or somewhere past that point is not new (it goes back long before my nearly 50 years in the business) and remains a point of personal preference in musicality. The freeze feature/with sensor, coupled with an ETD that has the accuracy to use it clearly gives the tuner the best shot at hitting zero (if that is what is desired) on the unison. The sensor (without the freeze feature) produces an effect all it's own which I find quite useful as well. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Steven N,

Thank you for your explanations (post 25), that was very helpful. I think I understand the sensor a little better. A couple follow-up questions if I may.

1. How are you certain the microphone discrepancies are due to soundboard distortion? 
   
   
2. After the fundamental, all other partials have multiple places of origin (2nd partial front half and back half of the string for example). Does the sensor placement affect what it "hears"? For example, would we get the exact same reading with three sensors, one near the front, another near the back and another near the middle if they were all picking up the movement of the same string on the same strike?
   
   
3. In relation to question #2 above, I would be especially interested if the placement of a sensor on the back end of the string has the same characteristics as the front since the front is the starting point of string disturbance (strike point). I would imagine that the string temporarily stretches around this point as it pulls the rest of the string into motion. (Of course, the fundamental itself would also be slightly higher because the string is being stretched the most at the beginning of the strike). If this is true, would it be possible that the front portion of the string stretches more than the back portion, making 2nd and higher partials  slightly sharper in the front of the string than the same partials on the back of the string near the time of the hammer strike?

 Thanks in advance for your input.

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 08:10
From: Peter Grey
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Loren,

The "coupling" or "entrainment" action of the bridge structure contains the unison once it is in tune (actually it has a progressive effect when tuning entirely aurally since once the strings get close enough [i.e. about .25 cent or so] the bridge eliminates the audible beat thereby making us believe we've reached zero when in fact we have not [but we're close]). So you're not going to get a "beat" in the unison several seconds after strike (unless of course it's a weird piano). 

What I find very interesting in these tests and graphs is that it shows a significant difference in how the partial structure changes its behavior when coupled (entrained) to the bridge vs sounding singularly. Additionally it clearly points out WHY the sound of a note can be altered by either tuning dead on at zero or slightly spread. We have long known this to be a fact, but precisely why has been a bit of a mystery. Furthermore, both the degree and the pattern of spread changes the way the partials interact and behave within this coupling action of the bridge. 

Tuning the unison as close to zero (as Steve N. AND MANY OTHERS) advocate (past and present) creates the best chance at keeping the unison clean for the longest period of time. This practice also (obviously) has a specific effect on the tone and (as shown) the volume of the initial strike. It also affects the decay envelope of the note in most cases, as does spreading the unison (every .1 cent added changes this decay envelope to some degree). Some of us refer to this as "voicing" the unison, which brings me to what I think is the greatest potential for this kind of research which is that it can help us SEE what our voicing techniques (with needles, etc) are doing (or can be done) to selectively change the partials behavior when the note is struck. If I had this kind of graphic information available to me on the fly I'd be very interested in seeing how I could voice the hammer in specific ways to achieve specific outcomes. At present, no ETD has the "guts" to display this information, but Steve's work shows that it can be done, and I personally find it very interesting and an eye opener. 

The argument about tuning on the attack or somewhere past that point is not new (it goes back long before my nearly 50 years in the business) and remains a point of personal preference in musicality. The freeze feature/with sensor, coupled with an ETD that has the accuracy to use it clearly gives the tuner the best shot at hitting zero (if that is what is desired) on the unison. The sensor (without the freeze feature) produces an effect all it's own which I find quite useful as well. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-28-2024 22:07
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Original Message:
Sent: 6/20/2024 10:01:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Tim,

There is significant research on the eigenmodes of the soundboard. The resonance points or eigenmodes 'tilt' the spectral peaks from location to location causing peak frequency detection errors of several cents worst case, and I have documented that experimentally. I have posted various videos of this analysis. That is why there are so many 'stories' I have heard of 'tuning examines' from PTG tests where one judge hears different 'frequency results' from another judge in another location spot. This is an issue the sensor 'fixes'. Remember, your ear is also an acoustic mic and your brain is the processor. 

Each partial at any given timeframe has three variables: (1) frequency, (2) amplitude, and (3) phase. The sensor location on the wire does not affect frequency like the mic placement eigenmode resonance does (as per above). It affects the phase points of the partials, hence, the amplitude is net affected. That is not a problem for tuning purposes.

Each 'string' is a 'spring under tension' and has nonlinearity when stretched beyond its linear region. That is why the initial attack from a hard blow will temporarily cause a small rise in pitch that lasts for a (at most) a few hundred milliseconds (as I have measured). After about 500 milliseconds, it settles down. I advocate tuning at mp-mf blow forces.

The mic placement issue affecting 'frequency' is a big deal. Did you see my past posts on it?

Best,

Steve N.

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 14:36
From: Tim Foster
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steven N,

Thank you for your explanations (post 25), that was very helpful. I think I understand the sensor a little better. A couple follow-up questions if I may.

1. How are you certain the microphone discrepancies are due to soundboard distortion? 
   
   
2. After the fundamental, all other partials have multiple places of origin (2nd partial front half and back half of the string for example). Does the sensor placement affect what it "hears"? For example, would we get the exact same reading with three sensors, one near the front, another near the back and another near the middle if they were all picking up the movement of the same string on the same strike?
   
   
3. In relation to question #2 above, I would be especially interested if the placement of a sensor on the back end of the string has the same characteristics as the front since the front is the starting point of string disturbance (strike point). I would imagine that the string temporarily stretches around this point as it pulls the rest of the string into motion. (Of course, the fundamental itself would also be slightly higher because the string is being stretched the most at the beginning of the strike). If this is true, would it be possible that the front portion of the string stretches more than the back portion, making 2nd and higher partials  slightly sharper in the front of the string than the same partials on the back of the string near the time of the hammer strike?

 Thanks in advance for your input.

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 08:10
From: Peter Grey
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Loren,

The "coupling" or "entrainment" action of the bridge structure contains the unison once it is in tune (actually it has a progressive effect when tuning entirely aurally since once the strings get close enough [i.e. about .25 cent or so] the bridge eliminates the audible beat thereby making us believe we've reached zero when in fact we have not [but we're close]). So you're not going to get a "beat" in the unison several seconds after strike (unless of course it's a weird piano). 

What I find very interesting in these tests and graphs is that it shows a significant difference in how the partial structure changes its behavior when coupled (entrained) to the bridge vs sounding singularly. Additionally it clearly points out WHY the sound of a note can be altered by either tuning dead on at zero or slightly spread. We have long known this to be a fact, but precisely why has been a bit of a mystery. Furthermore, both the degree and the pattern of spread changes the way the partials interact and behave within this coupling action of the bridge. 

Tuning the unison as close to zero (as Steve N. AND MANY OTHERS) advocate (past and present) creates the best chance at keeping the unison clean for the longest period of time. This practice also (obviously) has a specific effect on the tone and (as shown) the volume of the initial strike. It also affects the decay envelope of the note in most cases, as does spreading the unison (every .1 cent added changes this decay envelope to some degree). Some of us refer to this as "voicing" the unison, which brings me to what I think is the greatest potential for this kind of research which is that it can help us SEE what our voicing techniques (with needles, etc) are doing (or can be done) to selectively change the partials behavior when the note is struck. If I had this kind of graphic information available to me on the fly I'd be very interested in seeing how I could voice the hammer in specific ways to achieve specific outcomes. At present, no ETD has the "guts" to display this information, but Steve's work shows that it can be done, and I personally find it very interesting and an eye opener. 

The argument about tuning on the attack or somewhere past that point is not new (it goes back long before my nearly 50 years in the business) and remains a point of personal preference in musicality. The freeze feature/with sensor, coupled with an ETD that has the accuracy to use it clearly gives the tuner the best shot at hitting zero (if that is what is desired) on the unison. The sensor (without the freeze feature) produces an effect all it's own which I find quite useful as well. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-28-2024 22:07
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Original Message:
Sent: 6/20/2024 10:01:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------

Thanks for the info.

I was speaking with a friend today about tuning within the half second and this question came up. With all digital ETDs (that I know of at least), there is a small delay before the pitch goes on display. When milliseconds are of the essence and there is a 250 millisecond (or so) digital delay, how can we be sure that we are tuning within a tight enough window, unless using a stroboscopic tuner?

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 15:12
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Tim,

There is significant research on the eigenmodes of the soundboard. The resonance points or eigenmodes 'tilt' the spectral peaks from location to location causing peak frequency detection errors of several cents worst case, and I have documented that experimentally. I have posted various videos of this analysis. That is why there are so many 'stories' I have heard of 'tuning examines' from PTG tests where one judge hears different 'frequency results' from another judge in another location spot. This is an issue the sensor 'fixes'. Remember, your ear is also an acoustic mic and your brain is the processor. 

Each partial at any given timeframe has three variables: (1) frequency, (2) amplitude, and (3) phase. The sensor location on the wire does not affect frequency like the mic placement eigenmode resonance does (as per above). It affects the phase points of the partials, hence, the amplitude is net affected. That is not a problem for tuning purposes.

Each 'string' is a 'spring under tension' and has nonlinearity when stretched beyond its linear region. That is why the initial attack from a hard blow will temporarily cause a small rise in pitch that lasts for a (at most) a few hundred milliseconds (as I have measured). After about 500 milliseconds, it settles down. I advocate tuning at mp-mf blow forces.

The mic placement issue affecting 'frequency' is a big deal. Did you see my past posts on it?

Best,

Steve N.

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 14:36
From: Tim Foster
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Steven N,

Thank you for your explanations (post 25), that was very helpful. I think I understand the sensor a little better. A couple follow-up questions if I may.

1. How are you certain the microphone discrepancies are due to soundboard distortion? 
   
   
2. After the fundamental, all other partials have multiple places of origin (2nd partial front half and back half of the string for example). Does the sensor placement affect what it "hears"? For example, would we get the exact same reading with three sensors, one near the front, another near the back and another near the middle if they were all picking up the movement of the same string on the same strike?
   
   
3. In relation to question #2 above, I would be especially interested if the placement of a sensor on the back end of the string has the same characteristics as the front since the front is the starting point of string disturbance (strike point). I would imagine that the string temporarily stretches around this point as it pulls the rest of the string into motion. (Of course, the fundamental itself would also be slightly higher because the string is being stretched the most at the beginning of the strike). If this is true, would it be possible that the front portion of the string stretches more than the back portion, making 2nd and higher partials  slightly sharper in the front of the string than the same partials on the back of the string near the time of the hammer strike?

 Thanks in advance for your input.

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-29-2024 08:10
From: Peter Grey
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Loren,

The "coupling" or "entrainment" action of the bridge structure contains the unison once it is in tune (actually it has a progressive effect when tuning entirely aurally since once the strings get close enough [i.e. about .25 cent or so] the bridge eliminates the audible beat thereby making us believe we've reached zero when in fact we have not [but we're close]). So you're not going to get a "beat" in the unison several seconds after strike (unless of course it's a weird piano). 

What I find very interesting in these tests and graphs is that it shows a significant difference in how the partial structure changes its behavior when coupled (entrained) to the bridge vs sounding singularly. Additionally it clearly points out WHY the sound of a note can be altered by either tuning dead on at zero or slightly spread. We have long known this to be a fact, but precisely why has been a bit of a mystery. Furthermore, both the degree and the pattern of spread changes the way the partials interact and behave within this coupling action of the bridge. 

Tuning the unison as close to zero (as Steve N. AND MANY OTHERS) advocate (past and present) creates the best chance at keeping the unison clean for the longest period of time. This practice also (obviously) has a specific effect on the tone and (as shown) the volume of the initial strike. It also affects the decay envelope of the note in most cases, as does spreading the unison (every .1 cent added changes this decay envelope to some degree). Some of us refer to this as "voicing" the unison, which brings me to what I think is the greatest potential for this kind of research which is that it can help us SEE what our voicing techniques (with needles, etc) are doing (or can be done) to selectively change the partials behavior when the note is struck. If I had this kind of graphic information available to me on the fly I'd be very interested in seeing how I could voice the hammer in specific ways to achieve specific outcomes. At present, no ETD has the "guts" to display this information, but Steve's work shows that it can be done, and I personally find it very interesting and an eye opener. 

The argument about tuning on the attack or somewhere past that point is not new (it goes back long before my nearly 50 years in the business) and remains a point of personal preference in musicality. The freeze feature/with sensor, coupled with an ETD that has the accuracy to use it clearly gives the tuner the best shot at hitting zero (if that is what is desired) on the unison. The sensor (without the freeze feature) produces an effect all it's own which I find quite useful as well. 

Peter Grey Piano Doctor 

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

Original Message:
Sent: 06-28-2024 22:07
From: Loren Kelley
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Original Message:
Sent: 6/20/2024 10:01:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target. YouTube Video Presentation

Click here -> Video Link on YouTube: The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

The Piano Sound Is A Moving Target

This video presentation comes as the result of original research, with results that have never been prior shown in the technical literature. I believe it to be a major breakthrough to the understanding of the nature of the piano sound. The work presented was peer reviewed and vetted carefully. It will evolve into a future journal publication. The video is more than just theory, it presents sound demonstrations to validate the points. I will be at the upcoming convention in Reno for further discussion opportunities.

Statement of the Problem :

•       The piano sound is never in a steady state of settled frequency, hence, a 'moving target.'

•       The cleanliness of sound is most perceived just after the attack in real piano music.

•       There is no such thing as an instantaneous measure of frequency; it occurs over a 'window of time.'

•       Ultimately, the question: "When, in time, do we set the tuning, and on what basis?"

•       Each string and its partials generally has a unique frequency decay characteristic.

•       When unisons coupled, the Weinrich Drift effect can be profound, at least 1 ½ cents, with a significant delay after the attack. Each coupled unison will have its own 'signature' and spreading effect.

•       'Unintended consequences' as 'damaged inharmonicity' from slight spreading and not tuning in the first initial attack period.

•       There is a lack of objective data in the literature showing the actual frequency changes over time.

•       Therefore, the details of this phenomenon are not universally understood, nor agreed upon.

•       We are left with many subjective methods dealing with it, many diametrically opposed.

•       Each preferred method will produce a different outcome.

Solution:

•       Make 'new technology' to show in real time how the partials of a given string are changing frequency over time, giving the piano technician a 'target in time' that is consistent and repeatable.

•       Make this a more objective practice, raising the bar to a higher level in the piano tuning industry.

•       Sound demonstrations are presented to validate the points.

------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
PianoSens.com
steven@rf2bits.com
Cardiff By The Sea, CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------