Klarinet Archive - Posting 000553.txt from 2002/03

From: Mark Charette <charette@-----.org>
Subj: Re: [kl] R-13 and intonation. . .good grief
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:37:33 -0500

"fred.sheim" wrote:

> Then I would suppose that we have to define the term "in tune." EITHER the
> meter OR the piano is "in tune", as defined as being in agreement with our
> predefined "in tune" frequencies. I always assumed that the meter was
> BUILT in accordance with what we define as "in tune", which is the reason
> we buy meters in the first place. So if I peg the meter on every note,
> then I am in tune too. Are we saying that pianos are usually tuned out of
> tune?

In a sense - yes. The simple mathematical series of being "in tune" (equal
tempered based on 12th roots) ignores the literally harsh realities of things
that have mass, like strings.

To learn about temperament (which is almost the same thing as tuning - it's
making things sound "right" instead of being perfect at some point - which often
sounds "wrong") see http://www.izzy.net/~jc/PSTInfo/Temper.html . The last
paragraph of that page by Jim Campbell is especially relevant:

"The goal of musical instrument adjustment and tuning is an instrument that
sounds good. The qualitative definition of what sounds good has been being
developed by musicians and instrument makers for thousands of years. Modern
technology has provided the tools to make very accurate quantitative measurements
of these qualities. But these tools are only tuning aids, alone they do not
guarantee the goal of adjusting an instrument so that it sounds good. As we have
seen, a piano tuned perfectly to an equal tempered chromatic scale will not sound
as good as one that has been stretched somewhat in the upper and lower octaves.
However, when these tools are used along with a bit of judgment based on
knowledge of music, good results can be obtained. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's Sneezy.Org Pledge time. Please visit
http://www.sneezy.org/Pledge.html