Best TUNING TEMPERAMENT for acoustic piano playing classical pieces?

[campogi]

I bought a 50 year old YAMAHA U3 six months ago. When I noticed the sound quality of my tuned piano playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata was RELATIVELY different compared to the sound quality of the same piece played by A. Rubinstein on DVD, I researched on the problem. I was surprised to learn that it was not my piano's limitation, that is, upright vs. grand, that made a difference in how it sounded but on how it was tuned (EQUAL TEMPERAMENT) !!! More surprised was no one knew what tuning temperament was all about! Worser still, all the tuner in my city (Davao City, Philippines) tuned only in Equal Temperament. Under the circumstances, I taught myself and tuned my piano using a downloaded computer program. It is now tuned to Young Temperament and very much happier on how my piano sounds now. However, I cannot stop wondering if that is the best temperament to use for my YAMAHA U3 to get most out of it. I am a self-taught pianist that plays classical pieces only. Can someone help?

[jimbo320]

All I know about the process is having a good tuning fork. Duplicating each scale to exact pitch is the key...

[campogi]

Thanks. For a long time I thought that was all to it. As I ;mentioned, my piano is tuned using Young temperament now. The difference is sound quality is something you will immediately notice. Research on it and if your playing classical pieces more often have it re-tuned! 

[jimbo320]

I play digital pianos and keyboards for that reason. They stay in tune...

[campogi]

Thanks for responding. I was about to buy one when a piano player said, 'in the long run, the acoustic will hold better in value and piano teachers stick to it for reason of durability'. That was the reason I got the YAMAHA U3. As for tuning, I trained myself through U-tube. if you tuned a guitar then you can tune a piano. That was my only background and now my piano is perfectly tuned and only wonder on 'temperament' to use.

FYI: I used a computer program and contact microphone to tune my piano.

[jimbo320]

I believe the computer software you used uses Equal Temperament which gives perfect pitch relative to all keys. That's the same temperament that digital pianos and keyboards use, which in my opinion the best....

Jimbo

[campogi]

Dear Jimbo,

I really appreciate your responding.  The software allows you to choose the temperament to use. It allows among 16 others - Equal Temperaments. Equal temperament is the American standard set since 1911 by which pianos are tuned when it leaves the factory/showroom. It is best for jazz and popular music. It is the tuning we are used to. However, piano composition before 1911 (mostly Europeans) had their piano tuned differently and were called temperament. Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart and other great pianist/composer had their piano tuned according to their preference. What prevail in Europe during the Romantic Era (18th century) was Young and two other temperament. The top of the line YAMAHA digital grand piano is tuned using Young-Vellotti (not sure of spelling) and meant for piano concerts. Mainstream digital pianos are set using the standard - Equal which is what you have.

I understand your preference being modern. However, the music I play are mostly classical and during the Romantic Era. That is the reason why my piano, at first, sounded differently in tonal quality compared to recorded piano pieces in DVD. I hope you do not mind the little lecture.
Thank you again for responding. Should you wish to tune your own piano, email me and I will help. It's easy and you can do it if you tuned a guitar before.

[richard black]

Good on you for having the perseverance to learn how to tune! A computer program is likely to give more accurate results than the human ear, but it's still quite a skill knowing how to handle the tuning lever.

Getting a good tune out of a Yamaha is particularly hard because the bass strings are usually poor.

Most experienced tuners basically use equal temperament but tweak it a little. The tuner who looks after my pianos uses an electronic tuning aid which does the same. If you tune a piano in absolutely accurate equal temperament, top to bottom, it sounds quite odd.

[jimbo320]

Both of you are correct. The full grand Yamahas are tuned using Young temperament for that exact reason. So is the high end digital CP5 and P95. As for the bass strings on the grands that's true too. The Yamaha concert grand I've personally heard had replaced strings and sounded awesome.
Bottom line is, it sounds like you know what your doing so keep on doing.
Yes I do play more modern music most of the time. If I could I would add a CP5 to my gear for the classical stuff.

[rysowers]

As for tuning, I trained myself through U-tube. if you tuned a guitar then you can tune a piano. That was my only background and now my piano is perfectly tuned and only wonder on 'temperament' to use.

FYI: I used a computer program and contact microphone to tune my piano.

Hmmm. I must express a fair amount of skepticism about this post. I have been involved in piano technician tuning exams for the Piano Technicians Guild for 15 years. Many professional tuners think they tune 'perfectly' until they are objectively evaluated by their peers. I suppose it may depend on your definition of "perfect" I find it very hard to believe that an amateur using youtube could reach perfection so readily. I suppose extreme talent could make it possible.

[rysowers]

I know there is some mystic about piano tuning, and it is true that there are many subtleties that come to bear when trying to get the best results. temperament, octave stretch, clarity of unisons, and voicing all have their effects on the perception of a pianos tone.

As a full-time piano technician who works for some very discriminating clients I can assure you that equal temperament is the tuning of choice in the vast majority of cases. This is the tuning you will hear on the worlds most important performance venues and classical recordings.

If you are interested in exploring non-equal tunings, Bill Bremmer's EBVT III is a great place to start.

[rysowers]

Both of you are correct. The full grand Yamahas are tuned using Young temperament for that exact reason. So is the high end digital CP5 and P95. As for the bass strings on the grands that's true too. The Yamaha concert grand I've personally heard had replaced strings and sounded awesome.
Bottom line is, it sounds like you know what your doing so keep on doing.
Yes I do play more modern music most of the time. If I could I would add a CP5 to my gear for the classical stuff.

I brought this up on the pianoworld technician forum. Here is a link:
https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1613921/gonew/1/Non-equal%20temperament%20on%20high-.html#UNREAD

Here was one member's response:

No, it's definitely not true. The high-end Yamaha digitals have provided alternative temperaments for some time already, but it is always the same bundle

1 = Equal Temperament
2 = Pure (Major)
3 = Pure (Minor)
4 = Pythagorean
5 = Meantone
6 = Werckmeister
7 = Kirnberger

With ET being the default. This is also true for CP5 and its "brother" CP1.

Here is a page from Yamahas FAQ on the CP family, which confirms the above.

Yamaha CP series FAQ

The P95 doesn't have temperament options, it uses only ET (with a pretty conservative stretch), as does all the other digitals from Yamaha.

[jimbo320]

I stand corrected. Thank you for showing me the errors of my ways. But should this effect playing?
I must have a low sense of hearing. I've tried side by side comparisons and choose the CP5. All a matter of taste I guess....

[rysowers]

Definitely a matter of taste! There is no wrong or right way to do things when it comes to enjoy playing!! The important thing is just to have fun!

[jimbo320]

To me the CP5 has an awesome feel to the keys and I get great sound using Behringer and Roland amps. Currently I'm playing a PSR with an Alesis Micron. No complaints from other musicians either....

[rysowers]

To each their own!

For me, I've never met a digital piano that I could get excited about. I'm in love with acoustic. Call me a purist! I just feel more connected to the music when I'm playing a good acoustic piano. But I know people who LOVE their DPs and wouldn't trade them in for anything.

[campogi]

Dear Rysowers,
Hard to believe but true and no extreme talent involved just common sense.
I am not really certain if you could refer the word "Extreme talent"  to an Electronic Tuning Device (ETD) that indicates +/- 0.3 cent off from desired frequency or 99.7% accurate. It's not perfect but. . . The tools in just tuning are the hammer lever, dampers, tuning fork, and strip of felt - no meters, no gauges, no calipers, no computations . . . nothing special. The point is, THERE IS NOTHING MYSTICAL IN TUNING A PIANO. Good ears, a laptop, and common sense plus basic tuning tools are all you need. However, to be fair, I always watched the piano tuner tune the family pianos not once but many times but  less voicing. Saw nothing complicated that I dared to learn how.
Learning from U-Tube? In tuning, U-Tube showed  how to use a hammer lever, and of the dampers/felt strip. In addition, in voicing. U-Tube showed me where to stab the hammer felt with a needle or when to use steam and how. In registration, U-Tube showed where to adjust. In using ETD, U-Tube demonstrated its use (watch the needle stay center or stop when the oval freezes). There was nothing in all that came close to complicated. However, ETD has its limitations at extreme ends of the keyboard but nothing good ears can't resolve and not complicated at all . . . just a bit tricky. Too make things more unbelievable, I voiced the hammers too without extreme talent.

[campogi]

I do agree that Bill Bremmer PRT website is one good source in understanding what temperament is but it was from Rolling Ball.com that I got acquainted with the word temperament. I think the websites are must see for serious pianist. I also agree that you do need special talent in hearing to pass the PTR exam. However and honestly, I read their 'How to tune and pass the RPT exam" and did not understand it. Since I get the ETD to do the hearing, who needs it? 

[silverwoodpianos]

Hey Campogi,

I would encourage you to continue with what you are doing with the ETD and your tuning process. There are many different temperaments you can try out along the way. Some you will like and others you will not. Really the sound you hear is up to your preference.

As far as ETD goes just remember that these machines set frequencies and do not actually tune, so as you stated, at the extreme ends of the scale, and sometimes other places in the scale, you will find variances that have to be corrected by ear.

If you are already aware of these things then you are well on your way to understanding the process and can see a way to improve your tunings if you think you need to. I am aware of your location and the difficulties in getting service there.

As far as anything else mentioned with regard to exams, titles, or discriminating clients, these are the kind of things you needn’t worry about with what you are accomplishing there. There is no special talent required to write or pass an exam. One needs to study the materials and practice only. As far As I can see in your situation passing any kind of test would be a moot point.
Have fun with tuning and voicing your own instrument.

[jimbo320]

Oh I love acoustic grands too. But try carrying one around....

[campogi]

Dear silverwoodpianos,
Your response was well and wisely written. I understand what was said between words. I apologize and abide.
I am no longer certain that having good hearing is a blessing or a curse. In my quest to get the best out of my YAMAHA U3, I got into this forum not for coaching but for reenforcement to the final temperament I will settle in knowing, fully well, that the choice is a matter of personal taste in the end; got in for a lively and health discussion - not a debate.
Electronic tuning devices (ETD) are to be treated as guides not deciders. The final judge is the ear and it becomes critical at extreme ends of the keyboard when the ETD's limitation is reached. In my case, final judgement comes a day after tuning when there is only me and my piano and do adjustment by ear. Richard observation is right, Yamaha's (my U3) had deficiencies (weak sounding) at the lower octaves tuned to Equal Temp. This changed substantially and for the better when tuned to Kimberger and more so to Wrechmeister. Its sound became robust and round, and the rest of the strings sharper and cleaner. In both instances the piano's overall sound was at least 20% loader. Being an engineer and my opinion, I account the big change to frames design. The arched to the string frame is a compromise design to maximize string efficiency at desired frequency - string length to amplitude. Surely, the arch calculation was not set to equal temperament (20th century) but around 18th and 19th century. Therefore, equal temp forced itself on 18-19th century design - sounds 'odd' using Richard's words and how true.
 

[rysowers]

Dear Rysowers,
Hard to believe but true and no extreme talent involved just common sense.
I am not really certain if you could refer the word "Extreme talent"  to an Electronic Tuning Device (ETD) that indicates +/- 0.3 cent off from desired frequency or 99.7% accurate. It's not perfect but. . . The tools in just tuning are the hammer lever, dampers, tuning fork, and strip of felt - no meters, no gauges, no calipers, no computations . . . nothing special. The point is, THERE IS NOTHING MYSTICAL IN TUNING A PIANO. Good ears, a laptop, and common sense plus basic tuning tools are all you need. However, to be fair, I always watched the piano tuner tune the family pianos not once but many times but  less voicing. Saw nothing complicated that I dared to learn how.
Learning from U-Tube? In tuning, U-Tube showed  how to use a hammer lever, and of the dampers/felt strip. In addition, in voicing. U-Tube showed me where to stab the hammer felt with a needle or when to use steam and how. In registration, U-Tube showed where to adjust. In using ETD, U-Tube demonstrated its use (watch the needle stay center or stop when the oval freezes). There was nothing in all that came close to complicated. However, ETD has its limitations at extreme ends of the keyboard but nothing good ears can't resolve and not complicated at all . . . just a bit tricky. Too make things more unbelievable, I voiced the hammers too without extreme talent.

Campogi,

If you are able to learn easily what takes most professionals years of study and practice to achieve I think we can assume that you have a very high degree of talent and aptitude for piano work.

Using an ETD does eliminate the difficulty of learning to tune temperament and octaves by ear, but experienced tuners know that the real difficulty in tuning is not the hearing - which becomes second nature after several thousand tunings, but the subtle manipulation of the tuning pins and strings. Stable unions are the biggest challenge of tuning.

I think the reasons your piano is sounding better with every temperament you try, is probably because with practice your unison tuning is improving. That will have a lot more to do with the roundness of tone and power than choice of temperament.

[campogi]

To quench curiosity, a brief background: I come from a music minded family. My father and mother play the piano. Of their 9 children, 8 plays the piano and 5 are very good at it. Being the youngest I grew up with the piano being played when I woke and well after I slept in t ;Dhe evening- candidly brainwashed to sound.
A piano is a mechanical device and I am a mechanical engineer by profession which explains my aptitude. But that is not adequate unless you acquire the skill to handle, with great precision, the tuning lever. Fortunately, I have direct access to four uprights and two grand pianos - all ET tuned. Direct access? The pianos are owned by a brother, two sisters, and one very close friend, and all residing in Davao, my city! Major tuning (from ET to another temperament) when no over-stretching (scared to do it) will need two tuning passes on first session.  To account for strings settling, another session after three days or more. In terms of strings tuned: 288 strings (upright) multiplied by 6 pianos times 3 sessions per piano makes roughly over 5000 tuning exercises in a period of 2 months being a retiree. You are absolutely right on stable unison, if that means weird stray sound from two strings on the same note.  I later solved thru many trials. 
I may well be the exception. If there are bad things that resulted from this personal project, my siblings won’t pay and I can’t charge a close friend. Worst still, my sisters bragged and had their friends who owns grand pianos to try out their grand pianos . . . I have major problems.

[silverwoodpianos]

Hello Campogi,
No need to apologize for anything here. It is good to read that you are understanding the variances to be discovered by tuning and caring for your own instrument. The more you practice the art of tuning the more you will discover along the way. One thing I can read that you have discovered is that the construction of the scale lends itself to imperfections; so a certain amount of abstract adjustment is required if using ET for example.

It is true; certain temperaments on pianos sound more sterile than others according to the type of music you like to play. Equal temperament is good for contemporary music as you have stated. For the classic or romantic period, those pieces should be played in the music scale of the day they were written in.

[rysowers]

Dan,

Have you read the latest PTG Journal? Fred Sturm basically shoots down (very effectively) Owen Joregenson's theories about equal temperament not being tuned in the romantic period. It is an excellent article. Mr. Jorgenson's writings have been very influential, but it turns out they were also deeply flawed. Perhaps the biggest flaw is that all his research into tuning was based on writings and instructions written in English. He basically ignored what was going on in the rest of Europe, esp. in Vienna.

[silverwoodpianos]

Hi Ryan,
I haven’t had a chance to read that article over yet. I always look forward to reading another interesting argument regarding the interpretation of what the music writers of that day were trying to convey in the music they wrote.

[campogi]

Hey Dan,
Did you write that ". . . until you get an amature." Got a hearty laugh. That thought, in essence, rang in my head on my first few sessions. I was just working on my piano then and was prepared to pay if I broke anything and charge it to experience.

Ryan,

Very interesting info re PTG write-up on equal. Will check and only hope I can read it online. This site is becoming to be very interesting.

If anyone is interested on what I experienced trying equal, quasi, Kim, Wreck, young, young-vellotti temperaments, just post.

[silverwoodpianos]

Well I was trying to think of one that is similar to this one, which is quite familiar to a lot of people now;

“If you think education is expensive try ignorance”

So I came up with a couple of them;this was the first one.....

“If you think it is expensive to hire a professional wait until you hire an amateur.”

And this one specifically for piano owners, because all pianos built now are high tension scales;

“Don’t be high-strung; life’s too short as it is.”

I liked the first one better than the “piano specific” one. All this proves of course is that I think far too much or I have way too much time on my hands……

[campogi]

Dan,

For a while there I thought you quoted Confucius. We have a philosopher in our midst.

Checked out PRT journal . . . not a subscriber but read a sample article re piano plate breaking and the lawsuit that ensued. The plate broke after tuning and while the tuner (a woman) was testing her work. As an engineer, engineering design incorporate a MINIMUM safety factor of 10 times the operating load. Thus, a comforting thought to you professional tuners . . . since you tune a string at a time - the string will break way, way before it can do any damage to the plate. Under an unlike scenario were 288 tuners will simultaneously over-stretch all strings together - the worst thing to happen is all strings willl break and still leave the piano plate unscathed. If breaking does occur, it will be casting error (casting process; impurities in the molten metal used; or manufacturer design flaw) and not tuner's error. The woman in this case as absolved of any wrong doing and liabilities.   

[keys60]

I get the journal. Is that article in the last one? Soemtimes magazines come and they get thrown right into the rack without my knowing it. Or my issue didn't arrive yet. Hmmmmmm.....

[silverwoodpianos]

Dan,

For a while there I thought you quoted Confucius. We have a philosopher in our midst.

Checked out PRT journal . . . not a subscriber but read a sample article re piano plate breaking and the lawsuit that ensued. The plate broke after tuning and while the tuner (a woman) was testing her work. As an engineer, engineering design incorporate a MINIMUM safety factor of 10 times the operating load. Thus, a comforting thought to you professional tuners . . . since you tune a string at a time - the string will break way, way before it can do any damage to the plate. Under an unlike scenario were 288 tuners will simultaneously over-stretch all strings together - the worst thing to happen is all strings willl break and still leave the piano plate unscathed. If breaking does occur, it will be casting error (casting process; impurities in the molten metal used; or manufacturer design flaw) and not tuner's error. The woman in this case as absolved of any wrong doing and liabilities.  

No Confucius here, just my own imagination but thanks for the compliment........

Yes I read that story too. Not sure why the lawsuit was even launched actually, poor legal advice given to the appellant I guess.

 The cause of a plate fracture is not from tuning too high. Usually it is a faulty casting or the plate was not balanced/leveled correctly when installed. If the plate bolts are tightened too much this may cause fractures also.

Remember that when a piano is pulled up to A440 which is considered the standard pitch for modern times, the piano strings are only pulled to 66% of their tensile strength.

This is why piano tuners do not break strings; strings break because they are faulty in some way; rust, too much friction at bearing points, bad section of wire, nicked or damaged with the cutters, etc. etc.

[silverwoodpianos]

I get the journal. Is that article in the last one? Soemtimes magazines come and they get thrown right into the rack without my knowing it. Or my issue didn't arrive yet. Hmmmmmm.....

We have had problems with this out West too. From what I understand the PTG contracted with a new distributor agent for the Journal, and there have been subscription issues in certain areas. The lady I communicated with at the PTG office mentioned most of the delivery problems were in the north and west…….
To answer your question I think Ryan mentioned earlier the article in question was in the latest edition…..

[keys60]

I found it. The one with the felt punching and the heart of it? Now I can read the article.

[campogi]

I found it. The one with the felt punching and the heart of it? Now I can read the article.

Mind sharing its conclusion?

[keys60]

Mind sharing its conclusion?

It's actually a series of 9 articles that I would like to review prior to conclusion. I have a few books on different temperments and would like to reread the series. I understand the points made about wolf octaves and hyperbeating thirds, why there should be impure fifths and the like with the historical temperments, but I am still relatively new at tuning and still concentrating of even temperment, a good stretch of the octave and inharmonicity that I don't want to fill up on historical temperments quite yet.
Better off asking Dan.

[hbofinger]

Here is another question: Is it actually good to tune using a laptop? I have been doing it on my in-laws piano, which hardly gets played. But I have read that the true setting of temperament is different from piano to piano. In other words, though you may be using the computer to "scientifically" set each string to the right pitch, as heard by the software, you are in fact not getting rid of the harmonic beats. So besides having to introduce a small flattening of the 4rth and 5ths in the middle range, which the computer would do correctly, bringing the piano in tune with itself with the least amount of beats will yield what the ear hears to be the perfectly set temperament, but will not yield the exact same frequencies the computer would be hearing. I think the term is "inharmonicity of the string".

In Reblitz's Piano Servicing, tuning, and rebuilding on page 215 he writes "in a piano, then, equal temperament can't be defined as a table of frequencies and specific beat rates. Equal temperament in piano tuning can only mean 'the tuning of the temperament octave so it sounds as smooth and evenly as possible, given the inhamonicity peculiar toe the particular piano.'" I don't think the laptop catches this.

So tuning is an art as well as a science?

[keys60]

hbofinger,

For example, the 6.83 beats per sec. for an F3/A3 third  is really just in theory. Who can hear the .83 of a second. Each piano is scaled slightly differently and will react differently, but even those theoretic numbers should be tried to be achieved and then adjusted accordingly.
My Charles R. Walter upright seems to sound much better with slower bps than written in theory.

As for the laptop, a lot of computer software claim to adjust for inharmonicity automatically from piano to piano. Kind of like doing the math as you go along. I don't buy it.
I've tried the Sanderson Accutuner a few times, and although it provided a nice temperment and saved some time, I had to go over the top three octaves aurally. It just wasn't stretched enough for my ear and didn't test well. I think the average homeowner with a piano would probably be most satisfied but its not for the most discerning ear.

[hbofinger]

keys60,

That's basically what I thought. You could use the laptop to help you guide through a quick tune if you don't know exactly what you are doing, but I don't think it replaces the ear of an experienced tuner.

[keys60]

Not IMHO. Some customers truly believe they would  be getting the best "high tech" tuning one could provide, some would run you out on a rail.

[silverwoodpianos]

It's actually a series of 9 articles that I would like to review prior to conclusion. I have a few books on different temperments and would like to reread the series. I understand the points made about wolf octaves and hyperbeating thirds, why there should be impure fifths and the like with the historical temperments, but I am still relatively new at tuning and still concentrating of even temperment, a good stretch of the octave and inharmonicity that I don't want to fill up on historical temperments quite yet.
Better off asking Dan.

Ha!...your funny...from what I have read your all doing fine here...best to let new technicians find it themselves for the experiences of that. If I see something going sideways I will jump in...

[campogi]

Hi everyone,
Thanks for making this an interesting forum having started it all. Thank you for sharing your experience.
Ray was right, three strings in unison would sound louder but it could not account to how much loader my piano got. When Hbofinger wrote: “the true setting temperament is different from piano to piano,” and Richard Black wrote something like, “the sound from a piano tuned top to bottom in equal temperament sounded “ODD” it dawned on me that it is because of piano plate design – the arch of the plate. The length of the string of a particular note is calculated to give the maximum efficiency (loudness and pure sound) at a given pitch (frequency). By pure accident, I tuned my piano (at or near) the temperament the engineers must have been instructed to design the plate (or string length) thus maximum loudness and nearest to pure note! Equal temperament (ET) will sound weak and ‘odd’ when tuned to a given piano whose plate was designed to a different temperament – wolf at all notes then! If we get the frequency specification of a given piano model by manufacturer, then all our thesis, be it right or wrong, can be logically proven or disproven. I don’t have much punch to ask, Yamaha as an example, to give me the info, but you, associated by an association, can. I will try communicating with Yamaha on U3 frequency specification, and share my findings. Can you help?

[latrobe]

Hi!

A similar thread has been running for a bit on another forum since I was invited to join there on account of my YouTube recordings coming to light all in unequal temperament.

https://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1629577.html#Post1629577 gives lnks to the first _modern_ piano I've tuned to an unequal temperament. I'm certainly not aware that Yamaha or any major manufacturer has been recommending anything but Equal Temperament and have been under the illusion that what I started doing in 2004/5 or so in terms of putting on concerts in an unequal temperament was utterly revolutionary.

In due course, I'd be very grateful PLEASE if I could buy someone's old copies of the RPT magazines articles shooting down unqual temperament. I should say, however, that I was not influenced to tune unequally and present concerts in unequal temperament by any outside influence or author, and have only recently discovered Jorgensen's work. My inspiration to apply unequal temperament came from the music itself and in particular Rose Cholmondley's performance of the Chopin 2nd sonata here in around 2000 when I realised that the keys chosen would have had potent effect.

If anyone is interested in the 48,
https://www.jungleboffin.com/mp4/jill-crossland-unequal-tempered-fortepiano/well-tempered-bach.mp3 is a recording made on an 1854 Viennese instrument before it was restrung.

https://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/tuning.html instances someone else's delight at discovering an unequal temperament.

Best wishes

David Pinnegar

[keys60]

Actually, Campogi, thank you for starting this thread. Yamaha does not use a different temperment as do no other modern pianos. It is not recommended to tune any modern piano outside of equal temperment by design. As I know it, equal temperment is based on science AND theory. The beats per second for every third, fourth and fifth as written are theoretical yet tried to be achieved at tuning. Adjustments are to be made to acheive inharmonicity and a gradual and even progression of beat per second per third, tenths, sixths and every other applicable test up the scale. Its literally books upon books and other theories written on the subject so it would be impossible for me to verbalize it in a post.

Bottom line on that though is to try to achieve a good temperment and adjust to the sound you like. Some people like a very stretched octave and some prefer what I think sound flat in the upper registers. There really is no one standard. What you hear and what you like is a major factor in a good tuning. I always ask a customer if there is anything other than what they hear that they would prefer. In some cases, I make those adjustments until the customer is happy.
 The only chart I have (or had if I can't find it) was a graph of the recommended inharmonicity for Yamaha grands. Again, get close and adjust to what sounds good to you.

Thanks again for an interesting thread. Keep up the good work as I will try to do also.

[campogi]

Dear Keys60 and David,
You just don’t know how appreciative I am to your responses. Truly words from the wise and experienced. In the end, it is personal taste that will judge.
              Unlike new electronic pianos, acoustics do not have that luxury to switch at will from one temperament to another – one must decide on the best compromise. On my part, a final decision for life on my U3 – a decision arrived at after due consideration to all the thoughts given in this forum.
   I will move the subject to another but parallel level - the mechanical design of a specific piano.  I fully agree that all the acoustic piano’s out there are NOT designed to a particular temperament! As an engineer, I know for certain that there must be an engineering design specification for each model else the piano plate will be rectangle in shape (pardon my being candid). This specification must have been a compromise based on the prevailing musicality of the era (or accepted today). If your contention is Modern Piano is designed to ET (equal spacing), then the piano plate will be a triangle (equal steps) and not an ARCH plate – take it from an engineer. See the logic? The arch tells me a subtle variance in design - pitch/frequency. All pianos have arched plates. Why arched and not straight?

CONTINUED . . . .

[campogi]

So what is so special about this? If you tune a string to its engineering spec, it will produce the most efficient sound (loudest and cleanest) possible for a specific note/pitch. Please note, I wrote “MOST EFFICIENT SOUND” and not musicality. However, tuning a given piano model close or at its engineering specs (the most efficient sound) may not sound well as it may be a compromised spec – an average to all accepted temperaments (therefore: no manufacturer specs). Being the average, owners have the option to have the piano tuned to their taste compromising efficiency as it minutely deviate from the spec. However, IF the design weighed heavily on a particular temperament that may have been popular at that era and you, by accident, tuned at it, then the result will be high volume at the cleanest possible sound and MUSICAL.  In the same token, if the piano was tuned to ET, it would sound dull and lifeless when playing classical pieces during the Romantic Period. I would like to add, ET is perfect for Jazz as it snaps to the notes that are stringed tightly together. Jazz played on Young Temperament will sound . . . flowery, sweet?
Dave Pinnegar, I am savoring the link you mentioned with great gusto. If you find some sense to what I wrote, can you pass it on to them to discuss? Thanks. Keys60, unless you are writing about quasi-temp, ET is – 100 cents to an octave divided by 12 keys in an octave brings you to 8.3333 cent per half-note thus the name Equal Temperament. Try this for experiment, tune the lower 3 octaves to ET (U3 if possible) then retune it to Wreckmeister and play Beethoven - please share your experience.
I sent emails to Yamaha: Japan, Canada, and US three weeks ago re specifications to U3 specifically. No answer yet. With them being busy answering other queries and not an organization making an inquiry, I expect the reply will not come soon. What has the professional tuners gain from this? You will be in the best position to adjust pitch close to spec to get the best possible sound from any Acoustic Piano Instrument.
Arturo Campo (Campogi)

[latrobe]

Dear Arturo

You make a very interesting point which I'm not sure has been explored. Certainly organ builders can look at a rank of pipes and recognise the equal temperament shape or whether it was built to unequal temperament.

However, I think that more is to be gained in the tone of the piano by interharmonic relationships between strings than any "designed length" or "efficient length" of strings coinciding with any intended accord with the dimensions of the instrument. On this basis, absolute pitch would be critical, whether 415, 425, 432, 440 or 444 . . . My Viennese instrument in the link above was around 392 or so. We have restrung it and tuned to 440. Many say that Viennese pitch was 460. It will be interesting to see if we hear a difference in timbre of the instrument rather than the strings having taken it up to 440. The differences that a Good Temperament, even an audible one in contrast to EBVT, vary from ET are so proportionally small as to be insignificant in a measurement of length or any proportion of the piano frame.

Your allocation of Werkmeister to Beethoven is interesting. I use a variation of Werkmeister and the results are there for people to (hopefully) enjoy. The modern instrument that I tuned and recorded last weekend is a Yamaha, so those recordings are proof that such an instrument is not specifically geared into Equal Temperament to sound nice and that it can sound, to my ears at least as well as the rapture of the audience, utterly sublime . . .  

You might have picked up on the link my technique of linking the inharmonic bass aliquots to the respective best intervals in the temperament which I believe helps not only to give foundation to the sound but also to reinforce the colour and characteristics of each key in the temperament.

Young is a shifted version of Vallotti, both a variation of Werkmeister. Young shifts the centre of good keys to C whereas perhaps there had been a historical preference for F. Whether this is substantiable I'm not sure although one might look at the history of brass instrument tuning in F and Bflat and the perfect harmonics of brass instruments needing to accord . . . What is interesting is that although there might have been preference for one or two flats, G sharp or A flat being the last addition to the scale, according to Jorgensen, I believe A flat to have been always a tradationally "bad" key, so there is a rapid diminution of purity from one and two flats to three and then to four and five, giving a more gradual diminution in the sharp keys.

I tune by a combination of ear and machines. 20 to 30 years ago I used to generate frequencies and measure them digitally, and then generate the frequencies with a computer programme . . . and often would look at the result with a dual beam oscilloscope. This was a useful insight into the immediate transient upon hitting the string and the importance of getting the strings to respond in phase . . .

In tuning by ear it's easy to hear beats but judging whether you are just above or just below can require an extra lever movement, which I prefer to keep to a minimum. A tuning machine gives that indication, providing speed and minimising pin movement. However, I really like to bring the string up to pitch in one movement, bringing the string into tune with a fluid movement that breaks the tyranny of the kink in the string . . . and for this a fast pitch decision is necessary and machines are helpful in this.

The needle type machines are simply not accurate enough to enable fast pitch decisions and nor do they help to ensure phase coherence in the attack transient mode. My recent tuning has been much helped in resurrecting an old 1980s analogue tuning machine which became disused when moving to unequal temperament: I have now tuned it to the temperament. It uses an "au-point" sine wave oscillator and listens to the incoming sound through tuned filters cutting out all frequencies below middle C and giving a phase reading on a rotating LED display. This means that the whole bass is locked into its inharmonic aliquots being aligned to the middle scale octave, taking care of the inharmonicity issues. I believe that the modern CTS5 at least gives a similar display but the analogue nature of the old machine naturally aligns perhaps to how we hear. It's in the alignment of harmonics that a piano gives different efficiencies and tones and it's in the composers' use of fifths uncluttered by thirds in temperaments with pure fifths and exploitations of various sizes of thirds that pianos in unequal temperament give differing solidities and etherial qualities to the sounds in different keys.

I use the terms "rooted" and "unrooted" chords to describe the way in which chords are set up either in a way in which they are harmonically related and the notes relate to a fundamental note on their harmonic series or otherwise in the temperament that the beat frequencies of the intervals are so wide of any fundamental note that the root note is unrecognisable and has no aural meaning, a feeling perhaps of skating around on a sheet of glass with nothing to grip onto.

Of all the concert instruments I've tuned to date perhaps the recordings on the modern Yamaha in unequal temperament are arguably the most sublime.

Without having to go to the other forum links
[ Invalid YouTube link ] and
[ Invalid YouTube link ] will pick up the recordings. However, the recordings are no reflection on the quality of the player - it is a strange venue shaped like a coffin, painted shades of purple with heavy incense in the air, hardly an atmosphere for the best of performance.

If you are able to tune this type of temperament the new curator of the Giorgio Questa Bechstein in Genoa might want such a tuning. The temperament is hardly only for use within the confines of 19th century and earlier music. The Arvo Part sounded possibly even more enlightening and my experience of the Hammerwood Bechstein for jazz is . . . great! I recorded Larry Woodley trying it out in different modulations -

Best wishes

David P

[keys60]

David and Arturo.

This thread is going to a whole different league for me and I find it most interesting.
I can put out there my limited knowledge but this discussion between an engineering major/proficient musician and a person that tunes and has a vast knowledge of varying temperments is beyond my reach. I am afterall relatively novice in piano technology and history yet making a steady progress. I am now going to sit back and read and learn, probably keep my mouth shut at this point.
Thanks for the topic, the links and the detailed information.

Curtis

[latrobe]

Dear Curtis

Please don't keep your mouth shut . . . ! And don't just read . . . The only way to learn is to do it . . . and hear it . . . and you only get to handle the inharmonics by hearing them and having to decide which to accentuate or ignore. Equal temperament is easy because it's a fudge of everything, but a tuning where thirds or fifths can be very pure requires musical judgment and experiment to which there are no right answers, perhaps.

If you search YouTube "Emerson temperament" these are of concerts at Emerson College near here where I have been tuning the piano and there are a few videos there labelled "Testing" or "Trial" etc where you'll hear that I didn't get it right.  . . . or rather the experiment didn't sound as nice as I thought it should have done.

It's only been possible to achieve the practice and testing at tuning that I have through the talented and adventurous exporation of the repertoire of a most wonderful pianist friend, his friends and pupils too and it's great to have the opportunity for one's tuning experiments to be put through their paces in such a way.

On one Emerson tuning, I was giving the instrument a fast touch up and had not noticed that a middle B was out, and tuning the whole of the instrument to that sent the tuning off course.

At times those Emerson recordings make the instrument have the character of a fortepiano and this occurred from tuning the harmonics, which are more inharmonic on shorter strings, to the perfect intervals and giving them preference rather than taking tuning with the unison harmonics two or three octaves up more into account.

I hope that in hearing the links to the modern Yamaha people will be persuaded that the modern piano really can benefit from the historic temperaments and that the hitherto hidden dimension of music really can be appreciated, and will experiment accordingly.

Chopin's 2nd Sonata above all demonstrates exactly the effectiveness of the temperament:

achieving particular magic in the final movements

really tests the purity and contrasts of intervals, pitting one against another. I love the change of key at 03:50 and I'm very sure the temperament enhances this.

is a good test of effectiveness as the piece is so very very well known and familiar in equal temperament.

So please . . . experiment! Whilst I complain of electronic tuners with needle displays, you'll go a long way with a Korg OT120 or perhaps one of these new android computers for which you can get tuning software with a whole host of temperaments available: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.bitcount.cleartune

Temperament is all about experience - doing and hearing - and not mere theorising. But I do urge people that if you're going to the trouble of escaping equal temperament, don't be frightened of doing so audibly. Go for the strongest temperament that you can stand without it destroying the music. Rameau, D'Alemberg need exploration which I have not done yet and the Werkmeister-family temperaments will give usefully audible results.

But there are other contenders too that might be even stronger:

For me there have to be a few rules in choosing a temperament:

1. it has to be strong enough to hear, at least in providing chord shape-shifting and contrasts on change of key as composers intended such surprises
(In the Beethoven

are there such distinctions at 12:30 12:40 and 12:50?)
2. it has to provide purity in the home white keys and let the black accidentalised keys look after themselves for one to go there to experience special effects.
3. less necessarily, the greater the number of  pure thirds and near pure fifths, the clearer will be the sound and the greater can be the contrasts by way of harmonic reinforcement, vaccuum or discord . . .

Best wishes

David P

[campogi]

Dear Curtis and David,
Curtis, if you are serious in learning the craft well, ask and participate on anything that will broaden your knowledge. In learning, you have to start somewhere and along the way you will make mistakes and that is the best part of it – the making of a mistake. It is when you realized you made a mistake . . . you learned and that is what is important . . . you learned.
I can see you are new to subject of temperaments and struggling to make sense of it. I am just like you, new at it too that it pains me and grappling hard to really appreciate David’s wisdom to its fullest as we have a lot to learn from him. As you may have noticed, I use layman’s language as my learning to tune pianos came out of necessity and my desire to be good at anything I set my heart to. Take my advice, you will learn faster, as I know you read on temperaments, if you ask. So please participate and take David’s advice too.
David, you gave a perfect example of what I meant – the subtle variations in length of the organ pipes corresponds to the arch on the piano plate. If we could get the spec, it will come in a form of a engineering table . . . Note vs Frequency by piano model. Can you throw my request to your colleagues?
You and I are in agreement - Yamaha will sound better outside of ET and would not be surprised if the U3’s arch was designed using Werkmeister temperament as a guide. My U3 sounded like a grand (surprisingly loud for an upright) using it.  Beethoven? It was his Moonlight Sonata on my piano vs DVD recording that got me to this adventure and rollingball.com that opened my eyes to temperaments. For what its worth, this is what I concluded from my experiments using these pianos owned by two sisters, a brother, a friend, and mine: an 1867 Grotian Steinweg upright (Young Temp);  1934 Erhard Grand (Young- Velloti); 1982 Yamaha Grand (Young-Velloti); 1950 Columbia upright (quasi-equal); and my 1957 Yamaha U3 with 52”(Werkmeister) .
Conclusion: Based purely on my judgement
Young is sweet or melodious but subdued at the bass. Found it very appropriate for Chopin.
Young-Velloti sounds better on grands. A balance between Young and Werkmeister maybe?
Werkmeister has demanding bass and the rest clear and clean (not sweet sounding). Since I love Beethoven, that’s where my U3 52” piano is tuned. On Grand, this temperament was exceedingly loud on the bass.
The only reason I have quasi-equal is because my brother is a jazz lover else I’d tune it to young.
Personally, I think Young is appropriate for pianos with 48” or less bass string. The bass did not sound good using Werkmeiter.
Care to give your opinion David?

Have fun,
Arturo

[latrobe]

David, you gave a perfect example of what I meant – the subtle variations in length of the organ pipes corresponds to the arch on the piano plate. If we could get the spec, it will come in a form of a engineering table . . . Note vs Frequency by piano model. Can you throw my request to your colleagues?
You and I are in agreement - Yamaha will sound better outside of ET and would not be surprised if the U3’s arch was designed using Werkmeister temperament as a guide. My U3 sounded like a grand (surprisingly loud for an upright) using it.  Beethoven? It was his Moonlight Sonata on my piano vs DVD recording that got me to this adventure and rollingball.com that opened my eyes to temperaments. For what its worth, this is what I concluded from my experiments using these pianos owned by two sisters, a brother, a friend, and mine: an 1867 Grotian Steinweg upright (Young Temp);  1934 Erhard Grand (Young- Velloti); 1982 Yamaha Grand (Young-Velloti); 1950 Columbia upright (quasi-equal); and my 1957 Yamaha U3 with 52”(Werkmeister) .

Dear Arturo

Firstly, we have had a couple of jazz concerts at Hammerwood and an unequal temperament gives much excitement to jazz - so try it.

- you can't get a better example for a Good Temperament to be coping with chromatisation of chords . . . Interestingly, of course we refer to chromatic scales and chromatic passages merely in terms of music in pitch and specifically moving through semitones.

However, in the wider world the term "Chromatic" refers to colour, demonstrating the forgotten origins of the effect of the temperament on the music causing colour. . . .

I'm trying to reawaken people's interest in that colour. . . . !

Are you saying that the famous recording that you heard on DVD was actually in unequal temperament? If so, please can you let me have the details because this is very interesting as it's rare . . .

I am likely not to be the only reader astounded that there is any evidence for _any_ piano especially of the 20th century to be actively designed to an unequal temperament. Grove's Dictionary of the 1890s set "equal" temperament in stone and noone later questioned what "equal" might be. So for any manufacturer to have designed the old fashion into the new instruments is questionable . . .

Best wishes

David P