I just received an email from a member who 'challenged me' on my claims of achieving aurally 'beat-less' results on my 5ths and octaves. He declared I am 'wrong'. So, as an engineer, I like 'precision' in my written descriptions rather than 'subjective' ones. I decided to take the actual recorded results (from the sensor and iRig interface into the digital recording system) to capture my 5ths and octaves with Matlab. I got very close to the theoretical -1.23 cents on the 5ths and +1.23 cents on the octaves. All within a few hundredths of a cent here and there. The measurements were made in a Window of Time after the attack of about 1 sec capture length, using my Freeze Frame window concept, of course.
Subjectively, Paul McCloud declared the recording 'inhuman'. Kent Swafford and I are as usual on the 'same page' on Pure 12th ET.
Let's all agree that we will never all agree on the 'subjective' part of the preferences. We should 'tolerate' our subjective differences. But as an engineer and researcher, I can say that it is possible to achieve a near beat-less result in these intervals. Some may still prefer counting 3rds, 10ths, 17ths. That is a given and it comes from the tradition of aural tuning. I get that. I say, using the advanced tech, if you get the Pure12th done correctly, the 3rds, 10ths, 17ths will 'take care of themselves' but you may not like the tiny little bit of extra stretch. I say, subjectively and musically, that half of the literature is in a minor key or half of the chords are minor overall, and the major 3rds do not bother me as I practice he literature. I don't think it bothered Horowitz or Rubinstein either!
To each his own, but I did want to clarify the precision result and how it was done.
Steve N.
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2024 09:24
From: Wim Blees
Subject: Nearly equal
While I was at the University of Alabama, we hired a new violin professor who was he was going to give a short recital to the faculty and students at the beginning of the semester.
We had 2 D's on the concert stage, each with a slightly different tone. I had also just learned how to tune a historical temperament on my SATIV, like Israel mentioned. I tuned one D in equal temp and the other in a HT. At the rehearsal before the recital, I asked the violin professor and a piano professor to play both instruments and decide which one they wanted for the recital. They both agreed that they liked the D with the HT better.
After the recital I retuned the piano to equal, but it was interesting that the HT won out.
Wim
Original Message:
Sent: 4/24/2024 9:03:00 AM
From: Israel Stein
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
Steven,
Hmmm... many tastes, many ears... This whole discussion reminds me of a long ago conversation I had with the late Dr. Albert Sanderson of Accutuner fame. We were both then members of the Boston PTG chapter, and our chapter meeting one month took place at the factory of a tracker organ builder who followed historical examples in his designs. Forget the name - it was sometime before I left Boston in 1996... Someone asked the builder how he tuned his organs -and said "meantone". Common in pre 19th-century organs. This greatly upset Dr. Sanderson, and he proceeded to recount many of the arguments advanced by our friend Steve N plus a few others, to the effect that the equal temperament was the pinnacle of musical development, and why go back to obsolete systems and so far and so on. I remember staying outside that factory deep into the night and familiarizing him with some of the musical properties of the earlier temperaments, some of the literature complaining about the "ugly" equal temperament by older 19th-century musicians, and the key differences (and the emotions they were said to represent) that are obscured by equal temperament tuning. I don't know whether this conversation was a factor, but a short time later Dr. Sanderson published the offsets for a whole slew of historical temperaments for the Accutuner. I guess his highly rigorous scientific mind and engineering brilliance were able to accept the simple fact that there are many ears, many tastes, and a dogma is just that - a dogma, no matter how many brilliant arguments one can muster in its support.
Then there was my client, a Boston pianist with perfect pitch (not familiar at all with the historical performance practices) who came across a viol consort playing out on the street - playing in just intonation (i.e., pure triads). She said she never heard anything so beautiful in her life, and wished her piano could sound like that. I had to tell her, that's pretty much impossible for music as she knows it... You can make all the intellectual arguments you want, but as we said - many ears, many tastes. Or is that backwards?
------------------------------
Israel Stein RPT
P.O. Box 68141
Jerusalem, Israel 9168002
510-558-0777
istein248@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2024 00:42
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Nearly equal
Steve, since the pianists and pianos you're speaking of represent maybe .1% of the pianos and pianists we are tuning for, it's hardly the elephant in the room. Clearly ET is the standard by far but there are many tuners who offer a palette of tunings. Chopin did not compose for ET, that modern pianos obscure the coloration he created in his compositions is problematic. That's our loss. The main thing we can say about modern renditions on modern pianos is that it's louder.
It's a big world. Many tastes, many ears.
------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129
Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2024 00:08
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Nearly equal
No one is asking the most important questions. It is the elephant in the room.
1) How many tuners discussing temperament are actually tuning for world-class concert pianists who are playing the full gamut of the literature?
2) Would Evgeny Kissin, Martha Argerich, Yuga Wang, Yefim Bronfman, (the list goes on) prefer non-equal temperament? Emphatically, NO. Challenge me. Maybe one playing pre-Romantic, possibly. More on this later...
3) The foundation of music is the 5th and octave, not the major 3rd. At least half of the literature prior to the 20th Century (before atonality) was written in a minor key. Some of the most profound and moving pieces are in minor keys. Both major and minor keys of tonal music are securely set on the 5th and octave. If the 5th and octave are 'beat-less' as in Pure 12th tuning where they are balanced out, that makes the overall piano neutral / unbiased to the full gamut of music. It becomes even more important once we get past 1850 in the chromatic late-Romantic period, and even yet more important once we cross the bridge into the the early 20th Century with Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and beyond.
4) Let me be just 'blunt': non-ET is not acceptable to the ears of 'most' fully professional full-literature pianists. I stand on that ground.
5) I coached a concert pianist for 32 years. They demanded a neutrally tuned piano. When the tuner introduced to Pure12th tuning on their Steinway Hamburg D, the pianist said that was IT! They could 'easily' hear it. Think even about the piano in accompanying a solo artist. The soloist can always adjust to the piano. The piano cannot do the adjusting. The pianist played the full literature from Bach to atonal 20th Century literature.
6) The more I keep reading on these threads about tuning, I just keep asking myself if we are beating a dead horse, i.e., demanding non-ET on modern concert instruments with major artists. David Pinnegar will keep arguing for non-ET. David, that's fine. I respect you, but you are not Evgeny Kissin doing the full gamut of the playing for the concert stage. Just keep that in mind. On that subject...
7) I concede that if we want to play a Beethoven Sonata on a Broadwood, that's fine. There are fine recordings of such. They are not the recordings people buy. People want Alfred Brendel's Beethoven's, for example, played on a Steinway Hamburg D with ET. It is the norm for good reason, all of which I keep saying and it tends to land on deaf ears (pun intended) because we are not addressing the issues cited above.
With full respect to those who 'prefer' non-ET on modern 9' concert grands, good luck getting a top tier concert pianist to like it.
Best,
Steve
------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2024 20:23
From: Ron Koval
Subject: Nearly equal
A demo certainly would have some value - I believe someone who used to post on pianoworld (grandpianoman?) owned a number of player pianos and posted recordings of the player systems tuned in multiple tunings.
I've always found that it is easier to feel the difference while playing, rather than listening. As a listener, with musical examples, most people will accept stronger temperaments than if they sit down to play.
Here is another "nearly equal" with a different goal - to syncronize the combined beats between the M3/m3 in a triad. An interesting spreadsheet creation. The bottom part of the graph shows the ratios.
For me, I found playing this that it felt "unsettled" in a way similar to how I feel when playing any of the P12 tunings. Of course my "unsettled" could be another persons "vibrant". So many areas of our work can be percieved as a positive or a negative...
And to answer an earlier question - no, my Koval variable series doesn't have any aural sequences that I am aware of - it also came from spreadsheet work.
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2024 18:13
From: Norman Brickman
Subject: Nearly equal
It sounds like all agree -- Pianoteq is a great tool. Varying opinion on whether a real acoustic piano present provides a significantly more realistic sound – due perhaps to phase and soundboard eigenmode type influences when using the real instrument. I was certainly very impressed with Pianoteq + Roland in my one exposure to it, as I indicated.
It also sounds like the ultimate target for quickly creating A-B temperament comparisons might require an all-digital hybrid piano (like from Kawai or Yamaha) + Pianoteq. Not only does the hybrid use a soundboard, but lots of physical and musical characteristics can be adjusted – including tactile characteristics of keys and pedals.
But in the meantime, David – want to create an A-B comparison with Pianoteq while we wait for a hybrid to become available? Hopefully you can knock it out in a few minutes, and we can all then draw conclusions on its quality and, of course, on use of different temperaments. As I indicated, pick a short piece of music. I would suggest doing anywhere from 2 to 4 or more recordings: Ron's modified ET, Pure octave ET, P12 ET, a Well Temperament, etc.It will be interesting to hear. Regards, Norman.
------------------------------
Norman Brickman
Potomac Piano Service
Potomac, Maryland
potomacpiano@verizon.net
https://potomacpiano.com
(301) 983.9321
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2024 15:37
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Nearly equal
Yes - Pianoteq is extraordinary but as soon as one enters this realm results depend on the speakers one's using and my experience even in striving for the best possible recordings and striving for the best possible microphones and reproduction through the best possible loudspeakers is that a recording doesn't match or equate to experience of the instrument live.
There's something vibrant about a living instrument. On recordings I'm often able still to enjoy an equal tempered instrument but in live performance the living instrument is another matter.
A good pianist's performance also will be modified by the tactile experience of the keys. A midi keyboard, however weighted, and sound through loudspeakers might be well compared with a recording, but pale before a real instrument itself.
From memory I think Pianoteq reproduces a late 19th century Bechstein . . . but with the best setup possible in the same room as the real instrument from my side-by-side experience it's apparent that the sound is a good guide, but not the real thing.
There's no workaround for tuning a real instrument.
Best wishes
David P
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+44 1342 850594
Original Message:
Sent: 4/20/2024 3:21:00 PM
From: Kent Swafford
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
I was commenting on the extent to which custom tunings are possible with Pianoteq.
But, as a matter of fact, with almost 15 years of experience with Pianoteq, I have repeatedly shown that Pianoteq can be indistinguishable from recordings of a real piano. Pianoteq is a remarkable accomplishment, and demonstrating different tunings is well within Pianoteq's proven capabilities.
Original Message:
Sent: 4/20/2024 1:31:00 PM
From: Peter Grey
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
However...
I'm with David P. on this. There's more to it than simply frequencies and intervals. These frequencies and intervals affect the way the soundboard vibrates, creating a total experience that can only fully be felt by being there in person.
That's just my personal opinion based on experience.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 04-20-2024 12:48
From: Kent Swafford
Subject: Nearly equal
Norman wrote:
"But I don't think that Pianoteq lets you customize/craft the temperament."
Tunings within Pianoteq are infinitely customizable. Pianoteq supports multiple tuning protocols including but not limited to Scala and MTS-ESP. Pianoteq instruments can be tuned note by note with a precision that is for all practical purposes unlimited.
.
Original Message:
Sent: 4/20/2024 8:45:00 AM
From: Norman Brickman
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
It is interesting to hear about these alternative tunings, with various offsets and adjustments and stretches from ET. My preference would be to hear an A-B (or A-B-C) comparison before targeting to implement the new tuning. Better yet a "blind" A-B comparison.
Can anyone put together and post an A-B comparison? I recently had access to Pianoteq that was MIDI-coupled with an inexpensive Roland keyboard and a good set of earphones and it was very interesting to analyze a Well Temperament in that environment. But I don't think that Pianoteq lets you customize/craft the temperament.
Anyone have any ideas and access to an alternative to Pianoteq? With the right setup, I am hoping it would just take a few minutes to record the comparison. Choose a short piece to play, choose a piano like a Hamburg Steinway concert grand to simulate, select the piano characteristics like damper noise, and go. Regards, Norman.
------------------------------
Norman Brickman
Potomac Piano Service
Potomac, Maryland
potomacpiano@verizon.net
https://potomacpiano.com
(301) 983.9321
Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2024 20:40
From: Peter Grey
Subject: Nearly equal
Steve,
If you were to become familiar with tuning EBVT (plenty of aural checks once you learn the ropes), you will immediately see the resemblance in the shape of KV1.3. I'm sure even greater resemblance in KV2.1 )I haven't tried that yet though.
EBVT (by its nature) has numerous equal beating checks. Easy, once you know it.
Peter Grey Piano Doctor
------------------------------
Peter Grey
Stratham NH
(603) 686-2395
pianodoctor57@gmail.com
Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2024 20:06
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Nearly equal
Ron, indeed that is true but colored nevertheless.
Btw, do you have a system of aural checks for KV2?
------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129
Original Message:
Sent: 04-19-2024 09:25
From: Ron Koval
Subject: Nearly equal
Yes, I see your point. Except that while the amount of deviations of many of the mild temperaments could be common in 'ripening pianos', the specific direction and intent is not likely to occur randomly...
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
Original Message:
Sent: 04-16-2024 20:45
From: Steven Rosenthal
Subject: Nearly equal
This is not a critique but an observation. Being that most pianos are tuned but once or twice a year at best, the tuning of the average piano is more often than not in an unequal state than equal. The mild deviations of KV2 could be quite common in reality.
------------------------------
Steven Rosenthal RPT
Honolulu HI
(808) 521-7129
Original Message:
Sent: 04-16-2024 12:40
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Nearly equal
Ron - thanks
Plugging the figures into the spreadsheet we see, of no surprise, that it's very near to Equal but with the satisfaction of some key colour and which would be your intention:
| Proportion of same frequencies | |
| Equal | 38% |
| Kellner | 43% |
| Koval 1.3 | 38% |
| |
| Around 1 beat | |
| Equal | 15% |
| Kellner | 9% |
| Koval 1.3 | 14% |
| |
| 1 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 33% |
| Kellner | 28% |
| Koval 1.3 | 33% |
| |
| 2 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 16% |
| Kellner | 17% |
| Koval 1.3 | 17% |
EVBT1 gives
| Proportion of same frequencies | |
| Equal | 38% |
| Kellner | 43% |
| EBVT1 | 40% |
| |
| Around 1 beat | |
| Equal | 15% |
| Kellner | 9% |
| EBVT1 | 10% |
| |
| 1 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 33% |
| Kellner | 28% |
| EBVT1 | 29% |
| |
| 2 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 16% |
| Kellner | 17% |
| EBVT1 | 17% |
| |
EVBT2 gives
| Proportion of same frequencies | |
| Equal | 38% |
| Kellner | 43% |
| EBVT2 | 40% |
| |
| Around 1 beat | |
| Equal | 15% |
| Kellner | 9% |
| EBVT2 | 11% |
| |
| 1 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 33% |
| Kellner | 28% |
| EBVT2 | 31% |
| |
| 2 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 16% |
| Kellner | 17% |
| EBVT2 | 18% |
EVBT3 gives
| Proportion of same frequencies | |
| Equal | 38% |
| Kellner | 43% |
| EBVT3 | 39% |
| |
| Around 1 beat | |
| Equal | 15% |
| Kellner | 9% |
| EBVT3 | 12% |
| |
| 1 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 33% |
| Kellner | 28% |
| EBVT3 | 31% |
| |
| 2 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 16% |
| Kellner | 17% |
| EBVT3 | 18% |
As an interesting comparison the tuning chime bars of an 1896 Pleyel Chromatic harp give
| Proportion of same frequencies | |
| Equal | 38% |
| Kellner | 43% |
| Pleyel | 39% |
| |
| Around 1 beat | |
| Equal | 15% |
| Kellner | 9% |
| Pleyel | 12% |
| |
| 1 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 33% |
| Kellner | 28% |
| Pleyel | 31% |
| |
| 2 to 5 beats | |
| Equal | 16% |
| Kellner | 17% |
| Pleyel | 18% |
and for which the offsets are,
| A | 0 |
| A# | 2.39 |
| B | -0.16 |
| C | 3.31 |
| C# | -1.08 |
| D | 0.62 |
| D# | 1.38 |
| E | -0.48 |
| F | 1.49 |
| F# | -0.17 |
| G | 2.73 |
| G# | 0.93 |
| A | 0 |
I haven't tried this on a piano
Best wishes
David P
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+44 1342 850594
Original Message:
Sent: 4/16/2024 10:38:00 AM
From: Ron Koval
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
My own work was inspired by Ed Foote and Bill Bremmer "back in the day"... I worked in an academic setting so had opportunity to experiment and willing pianists to provide feedback. I realized early on that "full strength" temperament were a big jump from ET for modern ears and began to try to scale down historical temperament with spotty results.
The one I ended up designing scales up and down nicely (multiply each offset by the same amount to change strength) - I'm hoping David's spreadsheet can provide more information on good 'stopping points' going from almost equal all the way up to a Well tempered strength. I'll have to study what information the spreadsheet provides.
Through trial and error, I did find that the KV2.1 plays very well and is requested for a few of my teaching studios.
A 0, A# 1.82, B -1.05, C 2.1, C# -.28, D .84, D# 1.26, E -.84, F 2.1, F# -.56, G 1.4, G# .56
The naming convention is to use the offset for C and F...
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
Original Message:
Sent: 04-16-2024 10:01
From: Ron Koval
Subject: Nearly equal
Hi David,
Yes, getting the offsets from the rolling ball site does take some careful bouncing around!
A 0.0, A# 1.13, B -.65, C 1.3, C# -.17, D .52, D# .78, E -.52, F 1.3, F# -.35 G .87, G# .35
I'll try later to see if I can get your spreadsheet working on what I have here.
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
Original Message:
Sent: 04-16-2024 04:04
From: David Pinnegar
Subject: Nearly equal
Ron - that's a very smooth key progression. From the Rollingball information it's not clear what offsets one might insert into an ETD so as to be able to replicate it - perhaps it would be helpful to list them in this thread either from C or from A and also possibly to plug them into the spreadsheet I posted on the P12 thread to see what extent the tuning has an effect upon resonance.
Best wishes
David P
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David Pinnegar, B.Sc., A.R.C.S.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
+44 1342 850594
Original Message:
Sent: 4/15/2024 5:34:00 PM
From: Ron Koval
Subject: RE: Nearly equal
Let me try again to attach the graph....
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
Original Message:
Sent: 04-15-2024 16:17
From: Ron Koval
Subject: Nearly equal
A little more than a decade ago, I was working on different temperaments and wanted to develop one that was very mild, with the smallest offsets. With the ongoing discussion, I thought I'd share this one that has a maximum offset from ET of 1.3 cents.
It is surprising how little it takes to give a tuning a slight slant in the Well temperament direction. I use this as an ET replacement - it probably would pass as such, but all of the 'errors' are carefully constructed with a progression of intervals in mind.
Obviously, the better your chosen ETD is able to craft a clinical ET and appropriate stretch, the better any temperament will turn out. I'm currently using PiaTune for iOS that has an assist function for finding the best stretch. Graph from rollingball.com
Ron Koval
------------------------------
Ron Koval
CHICAGO IL
------------------------------