Tunelab

For me the point isn't tuning, but making the tuning last... for the first part, a half can (more or less) be worth the other, but for the rest you need 'grip' ...

Thank you for the report... I had asked something here in the past

http://www.pianoconc...ura-pianoforte/

contains interesting insights

Regarding software, I also agree that there are some incredible ones.

I have seen tuning with Cyber Piano Tuner on an iPhone, and compared to Tunelab which I have on PowerPC, it's a whole different planet.

Anyway, regarding the discussion about the "neck" from one of the pianoconcerto videos (no. 4), I understood the secret that changed my life as a tuner (amateur) from THIS to THAT.

Setting aside turning clockwise or counter-clockwise to reach the tuning, and which, time and again, should be done as little as possible, the important thing is that little push downwards or that little pull upwards (springing) that is preferably given at the end of the lever, before releasing the pedal and moving to another note.

Moreover, when finding a piano that is already stable and almost in tune, I generally avoid the constant tightening and loosening and try to see if I can converge using these other movements.

Since I understood this, my tunings have been much more stable.

What does Maestro Ferrarelli say about this; is it like this or is it just my impression?

We don't like software very much. I would like to share the paper I wrote for an exam on piano tuning algorithms. For those interested, I can send it privately because I am not sure if it can be circulated; a video is also attached to the paper. If this is of interest, I will upload everything to my Google Drive and share the link privately with anyone who requests it. In the paper and the video, I explain why it is not possible to create tuning software that achieves perfect piano tuning.

I am interested in the thesis, if you send it to me I will certainly read it.

Bye

I am also interested in your thesis, Maestro Simone, if you could send it to my email address I would be eternally GRATEFUL.

Ciaooo

saverio

[email address via mp]

I will send you the links to the essay and video as soon as I get home.

me too please

I sent you the links in your private mail.

Download the video because the Google player (which is actually YouTube's) freezes every now and then. The small arrow is positioned in the top left of the viewing screen. It's a bit large, almost 3 GB, but it's useful because all the most difficult mathematical steps present in the thesis are explained and commented on.

Hi Simone, I would also be interested in having the material. I don't know when I will have the time to look at it properly, but it is a subject that fascinates me immensely

Ok Umberto, I'll send the links to you too... ;-)

Thank you so much!!

Don't mention it!

It's a pleasure...

Simone thanks for the video, but perhaps I can't grasp the difference between your proposed method and tunelab.

Tunelab doesn't do what you are saying, i.e., first measuring the inharmonicity on that specific piano, under those specific environmental conditions, and then generating the tuning curve?

I generally measure the inharmonicity the first time, tune, re-measure the inharmonicity (better after a few hours or the next day) and then save the file to speed up future interventions on that piano.

Obviously, it's not like I plug my ears while tuning; rather, it's a challenge between my taste and the tuner, and anyway, it is much less stressful with tunelab. I think if I were a professional tuner doing four or five tunings a day, I couldn't do without it (to be fair, I say tunelab, but it also applies to cyber tune and other professional software; let's leave the others to the guitarists).

Hi everyone

I'm quoting you so I don't risk forgetting parts where to reply to you.

principale8 wrote:

Simone, thanks for the video, but perhaps I can't grasp the difference between your proposed method and Tunelab.

Tunelab doesn't do what you say, i.e., first it measures inharmonicity on that specific piano, under those specific environmental conditions, and then generates the tuning curve?

Tunelab does what I say, it's true, but I said this only to point out that it doesn't work. Or rather, it works in the center of the keyboard but not on the bass or treble because the perception of bass and treble is something subjective, regardless of the inharmonicity of the strings.

Inharmonicity is something concerning the frequency deviation of a sound's harmonics from ideal frequencies. The perception of pitch is given by the fundamental; therefore, pitch perception has little to do with inharmonicity. The set of all harmonic sounds of a tone constitutes the timbre of the instrument. Now, inharmonicity is important to calculate because the beats used during tuning take this variable into account, since isofrequency harmonics, as we have seen, are precisely affected by inharmonicity, which tends to make them drop in frequency compared to ideal frequencies. Therefore, if the software tunes note by note, it must first know the inharmonicity so that it can calculate the correct harmonics for that frequency as they are distributed in the spectrum. At that point, when a note is played, the electronic tuner has a calculated frequency with which it compares the one being heard and indicates whether to raise or lower it. The method I thought of is: don't let the electronic tuner listen to a single note, but a dyad (two-note interval); in this way, the tuner no longer performs operations on frequencies but on the count of amplitude modulations per second. If we know that A3 - C#4 must have a beat rate of 8.73 per second, in the dyad it counts the beat and doesn't care about the frequency. In other words, it emulates the method of tuning by ear. Obviously, the starting note must be tuned with reference to 440 Hz, even when using the standard model. In this way, in the central octave that we have to divide, we no longer care about inharmonicity because the beat between isofrequencies that must beat at 8.73 per sec is already affected by inharmonicity; we can say that the inharmonicity is already included. The problem then arises when bringing back the octaves, because the ear subjectively tends to raise (for low sounds) or lower (for high sounds) the sounds, and this varies from person to person; that's why I conclude by saying that perfect tuning does not exist.

I generally measure the inharmonicity the first time, tune, re-measure the inharmonicity (better after a few hours or the next day), and then save the file to speed up future interventions on that piano.

One should measure how much it changes and if it is actually noticeable, but even for future interventions, the inharmonicity will surely have changed. Because as the string stabilizes, it thins under the effect of tension. Thinning corresponds to a different inharmonicity coefficient, but I repeat, one would need to evaluate if this variation results in something noticeable; I have never done experiments regarding this.

Obviously, it's not like I plug my ears while tuning; on the contrary, it's a challenge between my taste and the tuner, and anyway, it is much less stressful with Tunelab. I think if I did tuning for a living, if you do four or five tunings a day, you couldn't do without it (to be fair, I say Tunelab, but it also applies to CyberTune and other professional software; let's leave the others to the guitarists).

Hi everyone

I agree, certainly tuners help and greatly reduce the stress load for tuners. So why not use them where they work? I still maintain, however, that in the low and high ends, there is no electronic tuner that works. The ear is a tool far more powerful than these software programs.

simone, could you pass me the link? I would also like to see your video.

Gencix wrote:

simone would you pass me the link, I would also like to see your video.

Sent in your private mail

thanks, I am reading, seeing and... learning