The C.ha.s Temperament

I am also sharing this link

http://www.chas.it/i...emid=38〈=it

e c.ha.s.® 1 of 24 - Temperament comparison

http://www.chas.it/i...emid=38〈=it

Open content (youtube)

I discovered that the first recording of a Chas tuning performed on a quarter Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm) is available online:

http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=20194ca8898fecef1bee9a6e9edd9c76e04e75f6e8ebb871

...I was unaware

Ettore, re-upload the file if you have it, or update the link because it is no longer valid.

As for me, I had heard talk of A332 Hz golden tuning. I want to read a book about this subject, but it sounds to me like nothing more than esotericism.

I found:

STRAVINSKY, Petrouchka - CHAS Temperament - "RINA SALA GALLO" Piano Competition 2010

Say what you want, I like it

Open content (youtube)

Anche ... CHAS Tuning .mp3

https://www.box.com/shared/od0d7506cv

I read that the difference between equal temperament and C.Ha.S is:

A4: 880-880.23 (I remember that equal Bb is 932.33, so 0.23 Hz out of 52.33)

A5: 1760-1760.93 (Bb=1864.66; 0.93 out of 104.66)

A6: 3520-3522.80 (Bb=3729.31; 2.80 out of 209.31).

Remembering that every piano, immediately after being tuned, is already out of tune (and therefore listening to the examples above provides absolutely no data to the cause since we are always listening to different pianos), it seems to me that the difference is negligible even at the level of high harmonics... I would like to know the opinion of a tuner regarding intonation adjustment (done by ear) in the high octaves (and also in the low ones).

Regarding A at 432 Hz, there is a rich literature that clashes, unfortunately, with the history of the tuning fork, which has varied by hundreds of Hz depending on the place and the eras.

If you then read

<< We know that music is "information"; the amount of sound data created at 432Hz is not lost among the gas molecules present in the air that transport the sound (because it is compatible with their molecular structure), which is instead what happens when playing at 440Hz.

Listening to, playing, and singing music, harmonized to the frequency of the "Scientific Tuning Fork" at 432 Hz, gives benefit to the entire planet and to those who inhabit it.

Listening to, playing, and singing music with the "disharmonious tuning fork a440Hz" causes >>

then we must necessarily switch to 432, for the good of humanity. ( http://www.inavigatori.it/navigatori/varie/musica_a_432hz_060709.htm )

I read about A 432 in a book that is a sort of cross between esoteric, pseudo-scientific, and musical genres. It spoke of golden tuning based on A 432. But I don't know, I'm not sure how much foundation these things have. Usually, I've never fully bought into this genre of books; in my opinion, some things are just random combinations...

Whether there is anything scientific about it I do not know, but regardless, Giuseppe Verdi in 1884 wrote a letter addressed to the musical commission of the Italian government in which he requested to officialize the use of the pitch (diapason) at 432 Hz and, writing the phrase "for mathematical requirements" regarding this, obtained a decree law that normalized the pitch to an A of 432 oscillations per second. Verdi, Mozart, and other musicians tuned their orchestras to 432 Hz.

Physicists Sauver, Meerens, Savart, and Italian scientists Montanelli and Grassi Landi expressed the same opinion as Verdi with a decree that was approved unanimously at the congress of musicians in 1881 (scientific pitch).

Tuning forks (understood as reference frequency), at least until the beginning of the 1800s, were church organs since a large part of the repertoire (opera excepted) was performed there and retuning an organ every single time is certainly not a simple operation; therefore we find A that is more than 1 tone below (see Naples), others that are more than a half tone above (see Venice). I remember a dispute regarding sacred Handel in which the vocal parts are extremely high and today, with modern instruments, they are difficult for the choir to execute (it would have been enough to know that Handel's A was around 392, which is about 1 tone below the current A: the choir, especially the sopranos, would have been grateful).

Greetings to all.

I will be pleased to shed light on any aspects that may seem obscure.

It is appropriate to specify that the Chas Harmonic Temperament (read Ciàs) does not deal with the frequency of our A4, and discussing today's "convention" (440 Hz) here would lead us off topic.

Zedef: ..."...Remembering that every piano, immediately after being tuned, IS already out of tune (and therefore listening to the above examples provides absolutely no data to the cause since we are always listening to different pianos), it seems to me that the difference is negligible even at the level of high harmonics..."...

The Chas tuning examples have been requested from several sides, with the idea that an auditory test can be worth more than many words.

Thus, I have put online five recordings which you can find here today:

http://chas.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=44&lang=en

Zedef, perhaps you meant to say that the difference IS negligible... and on a "practical" level, it might be necessary to make a distinction between the casual listener and the educated/demanding one on one hand, and on the other hand, what can be useful to those who work as tuners (like me).

As a "listener," I conducted this research simply aiming for a beautiful and correct "intonation"; over time, I then understood that small frequency variations can significantly modify the voice and resonance of any instrument. As a tuner, I intended to resolve quite a few approximations which, in practice, concern the tuning of the first octave (the central one), its expansion towards the highs and lows, and relevant stability factors.

On a theoretical level, the Chas model IS the result of a "different" approach to the definition of scale frequencies, as is possible to read in sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the publication.

I propose a simple listening session just to take some measurements; do you also hear something... strange?

http://chas.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=44&lang=en

Open content (youtube)

...do we have the good Capurso among us?

I rush to listen

We know that music is "information"; the amount of sound data, created at 432Hz, is not lost among the gas molecules present in the air that carry the sound (because it is compatible with their molecular structure), which is instead what happens when playing at 440Hz.

Why?

micamahler wrote:

We know that music is "information"; the amount of sound data, created at 432Hz, is not lost among the gas molecules present in the air that carry the sound (because it is compatible with their molecular structure), which is instead what happens when playing at 440Hz.

Why?

Exactly.. I was being ironic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Are there any opinions on the harp and other listening experiences?

Because if a tuning system unified them, I don't see it. To me, the harp simply sounds out of tune.

I am asking, since it seems to me that among the forum members, there is also someone who developed this new tuning system: what need does it respond to?

I have studied something about equal temperament, I fear I might have missed something in general...

Zedef: "Are there any opinions on the harp and the other listenings? Because if a tuning system connects them, I don't perceive it. To me, the harp simply sounds out of tune."

Yes, to me too that harp simply sounds out of tune. The fact that more than one person can say that "something sounds out of tune" perhaps represents the premise of my research.

Do you want to start giving an opinion on the other listenings?

Lestofante: ..."since it seems to me to understand that among the forum members, there is also someone who has developed this new tuning system: what need does it respond to?"

Well, I partially anticipated this in the previous post. The Chas harmonic temperament generally deals specifically with the intonation of the semitonal scale; then it also happens that some dogmas are overthrown, for example the theoretical one of the "pure" octave, or of the declining fifth, or that in practice one must settle for a "compromise". And for those who know a little, there was also a millennia-old underlying issue: the apparent impossibility of combining the prime numbers 2, 3, and 5, which refer to the harmonic series, within the same scale.

Where do we want to start?

alfcap wrote:

Where do we want to start?

Shall we do a good review? I am not as much of an expert as you all. Let's recount the starting point and the results of the CHAS in relation to the problems it had to (or wanted to) solve.

Lestofante wrote:

Shall we do a good review? I am not as expert as you all. Let's recount the starting point and the results of CHAS in relation to the problems it had to (or wanted to) solve.

The "starting point" was the duty/desire to tune a piano and be able to hear it perfectly in tune.

At first, I was told: increasing fourths, decreasing fifths, pure octaves. After some time, I realized there was no way to divide the 12 semitones in a satisfactory manner, and so I questioned the theoretical reference model, the so-called Equal Temperament.

The underlying issue arises from a simple fact: it is not possible to arrange in a scale frequencies (read numbers) that are simultaneously multiples or submultiples of prime numbers, such as 3 and 5. These numbers, along with 2 and its multiples, are drawn directly from the lengths of a vibrating string; in fact, at half the string length (1/2) we find the octave harmonic, at 1/3 the twelfth, at 1/4 the double octave, at 1/5 the seventeenth, etc.

The issue became a problem when two theoretical assumptions were established which, over time, have marked the study and evolution of temperaments: the first, that the module to be "tempered" could only comprise 12 semitones; the second, that the consonance of "pure" intervals had to be preserved—those deriving from ratios between small integers, such as 2:1 for the octave, 3:2 for the fifth, 5:4 for the third, and so on. From this, by cutting and trimming the ratios between individual scale frequencies, the form of temperament that could best (or perhaps least badly) respond to different musical styles has been sought throughout the centuries.

To make a long story short (and to give you a chance to engage in dialogue), I would invite you to read sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the publication (link above), two pages that describe the new approach and justify the need to move away from arbitrary assumptions.

I don't know if I like a monologue... shall I go on?...

For me, yes; I am interested in the subject and even though I have already read the links you proposed, I am happy to hear about it (read: write) firsthand from its creator.