Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

math.uwaterloo.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#31

Post by mootothemax »

arntatis wrote: post #19

Can this be applied to an electric piano to get a similar type of colour in the sound?

>Can this be applied to an electric piano to get a similar type of colour in the sound?

Every electronic "stage" piano I've owned has had an option to modify the tuning, at minimum allowing you to choose between equal, well, meantone, pythagorean.

I remember one Yamaha I owned even had the option to customise the tuning yourself. Can't remember the model number, it cost a decent-ish chunk of change, around 800 GBP about 15 or so years ago.

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#32

Post by lamby »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #26
xpda wrote: post #15

There is some debate as to whether Bach intended equal-temperament or well-temperament. These terms were not well-defined in his day. https://books.google.com/books?id=yZ95L8Xohs0C&pg=PA4

There's one guy on youtube who claims Bach's squiggles underneath each piece title in the original WTC manuscript actually represents an ideal tuning system for that piece. I thought that was a crackpot theory, but then he played some pieces in their respective individual tuning systems on a harpsichord, and they sounded absolutely amazing, better than well tempered (or equal obviously). So who knows!

Bach seems to attract all sorts of bizarre numerology, alas.

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#33

Post by hrnnnnnn »

analog31 wrote: post #16
acjohnson55 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that be nice, rather than whining about numbers? It's an informative article, but the reality is that nobody cares . And I mean "nobody" in the approximate sense of 99.9% of music listeners. The reality is that our brains are more than happy to glue these nasty thirds to their hypothetical frequencies. Sure, they have a little roughness to them, but it's not a big deal, especially considering that most piano…

To make matters worse, or maybe better, most non keyboard instruments have no sensible temperament whatsoever. Even fretted instruments are a compromise.

I've seen some crazy guitar fretboards that try to make up for this, with really jagged frets.

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#36

Post by EarthLaunch »

CarVac wrote: post #14
EarthLaunch wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. That is astounding. I wonder if there is any way to find music performed using original tunings. It sounds SO much better to me.

I know, it's amazing. Each example had my mouth agape. For me, the closest analogy would be watching Japanese movies and TV shows being able to understand their original language as opposed to relying on subtitles or dubs; there's a whole dimension of nuance I was missing before I learned the language.

Yes. In return, while learning about this I found this great explanation:

http://contentspiano.blogspot.com/2006/02/pythagorean-equal-...

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#37

Post by shiro »

haberman wrote: post #8

Aside from temperament, I had my piano tuner claim to me that tuning pianos is actually more complicated than that. He said that the high end of the piano had to be tuned different from the low end, with some explanation like how the hammer strike bends the pitch of low vs high strings (I wish I could remember the specifics of what he said, but this was many years ago). I couldn't decide at the time if what he was sa…

High-end electronic tuners actually have settings for stretched tuning.

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#38

Post by octatoan »

hrnnnnnn wrote: post #33
analog31 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make matters worse, or maybe better, most non keyboard instruments have no sensible temperament whatsoever. Even fretted instruments are a compromise.

I've seen some crazy guitar fretboards that try to make up for this, with really jagged frets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRsSjh5TTqI

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#39

Post by coldtea »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #7
codezero wrote: post #2

Does anyone have links to audio samples where these differences are prominent? In addition to comments, this video has a decent comparison using sawtooth tones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRlp-OH0OEA

Wouldn't that be nice, rather than whining about numbers? It's an informative article, but the reality is that nobody cares . And I mean "nobody" in the approximate sense of 99.9% of music listeners. The reality is that our brains are more than happy to glue these nasty thirds to their hypothetical frequencies. Sure, they have a little roughness to them, but it's not a big deal, especially considering that most piano…

>It's an informative article, but the reality is that nobody cares. And I mean "nobody" in the approximate sense of 99.9% of music listeners.

The article, like everything else in life, is for those who do care.

Re: Well vs. Equal Temperament (2000)

#40

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

haberman wrote: post #8

Aside from temperament, I had my piano tuner claim to me that tuning pianos is actually more complicated than that. He said that the high end of the piano had to be tuned different from the low end, with some explanation like how the hammer strike bends the pitch of low vs high strings (I wish I could remember the specifics of what he said, but this was many years ago). I couldn't decide at the time if what he was sa…

Your piano tuner was completely correct. Piano strings have a non-linear overtone distribution, and if you tune to an electronic tuner without allowing for that they'll sound very bad.

Also, piano tuners can create just the right amount of movement in the sound by detuning the strings under each note.

You're not going to create that effect if you have no idea what you're doing.

Post reply on HN