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

The Alexander Piano

alexanderpiano.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 103 posts

Re: The Alexander Piano

#71

Post by adamisom »

i_am_jl wrote: post #68
jacquesm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a touching story, and one thing that it highlights for me is that there will always be people that seem to relish pushing others down to their own level. That's such a frustrating thing.

That's too bad. My takeaway is that there will always be people, like NalNezumi, that are looking to lift you up.

It's also unfortunate that someone cool enough to make their own instruments would ever feel like a weirdo/outcast for it. The opposite should be true in the median high school.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#72

Post by 1-more »

A kiwi in a shed is nigh unstoppable. I have no idea why that's a national stereotype (maybe manufactured goods took a long time to replace for an agricultural/pastoral economy?) but it's pretty cool as national stereotypes go.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#73

Post by Jeff_Brown »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #69
mrob wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is reduced inharmonicity in the bass notes. A sound we hear as a single pitch is made from multiple different sine waves playing simultaneously, called "partials" in general, or "harmonics" when those sine waves are integer[0] multiples of the lowest frequency, which is called the "fundamental". In an string instrument, the ends of the strings are fixed in place. This means any standing wave in the str…

As I understand it from my own tuning career, octave stretching is more about correcting dissonances that result from equal temperament than correcting anything about the dynamics of a physical piano. When you tune with octave stretching, you will also widen the high octaves, which are the correct size to hold a standing wave on almost every piano with standard "piano wire" strings. This helps to bring the 2nd overto…

I don't believe that's it. The problem of tuning higher notes to the stretched harmonics of lower notes would still be present even in a piano tuned using just intonation.

Suppose for instance the 2nd harmonic of C2 is 2 cents sharp of where it "ought" to be (which is twice the frequency of C2 itself). Then if you tune C3 (the C in the next octave) to be similarly 2 cents sharp of where it ought to be, it will not clash against the 2nd harmonic in C2 -- but the result is that the distance from C2 to C3 is a little more than an octave.

(I don't know whether 2 cents is anywhere ballpark -- I've studied the theory but haven't performed measurements.)

Incidentally, if you want to play microtonal music on an equally tuned piano, this is an argument for selecting a sharp system, such as 27-edo or 58-edo -- that is, a system whose approximations to the harmonics you're interested in are sharps. (12-edo gives an approximation 2 cents flat of the 3rd harmonic and 14 cents sharp of the 5th harmonic. It ignores the other harmonics. 27-edo gives a sharp approximation to harmonics 3, 5 and 7. 58-edo gives a sharp approximation to 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13 -- nirvana, as far as I'm concerned.)

Re: The Alexander Piano

#74

Post by pclmulqdq »

Jeff_Brown wrote: post #73
pclmulqdq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it from my own tuning career, octave stretching is more about correcting dissonances that result from equal temperament than correcting anything about the dynamics of a physical piano. When you tune with octave stretching, you will also widen the high octaves, which are the correct size to hold a standing wave on almost every piano with standard "piano wire" strings. This helps to bring the 2nd overto…

I don't believe that's it. The problem of tuning higher notes to the stretched harmonics of lower notes would still be present even in a piano tuned using just intonation. Suppose for instance the 2nd harmonic of C2 is 2 cents sharp of where it "ought" to be (which is twice the frequency of C2 itself). Then if you tune C3 (the C in the next octave) to be similarly 2 cents sharp of where it ought to be, it will not cl…

While it is true that the harmonics will be off for any tuning system, octave stretching is relatively new and arises only on equal tempered instruments because it needs to be applied equally to every note, so it sounds terrible if you apply it to unequal tunings where (for example) the distance between C2 and G3 can be 20 cents different than the distance between C#2 and G#3.

In equal temperament, the distance is ~2 cents between the 2nd harmonic of C2 and G3 (and every other pair a 12th apart), so stretching an octave by ~1 cent spreads that distance out while being pretty much imperceptible. In a decent quarter-comma tuning system like Werckmeister (a very common Baroque tuning), four of the 5ths are off by about 5 cents, and the others are pure. As a result, the 2nd harmonic differs from the note a 12th above by a variable amount. Stretching every octave by 2.5 cents to balance this becomes very much audible across a keyboard, and sounds very odd on the harmonic series' that are nearly perfect.

Baroque tunings also pay a lot of attention to the major 3rd (the 4th harmonic), which is a notable weakness of equal temperament - it is far too narrow.

Regardless, octave stretching doesn't have to do with piano dynamics, it has to do with tuning systems.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#75

Post by jacquesm »

calf wrote: post #60
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some videos at the bottom where it is played. It sounds beautiful. The range is like a normal 88 key piano, no extra keys but what matters is the difference in timbre in the low notes. Your 'regular' piano has what is called an overwound string, a steel string that is covered with one or two layers of copper. This results in a string that sounds less pure. The Alexander piano is special in that it uses no o…

I listened to the Clara Schumann piece and I thought the low notes have a "perfectly tinny" sound, as if they were computer-generated on MATLAB. Or like a harpsichord. I assume that's the difference?

I wouldn't call it tinny, I would call the alternative 'muddy'. It's a much more pure tone than you would get from a 'normal' bass string (which is actually quite a complex piece by itself).

Re: The Alexander Piano

#76

Post by mrob »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #74
Jeff_Brown wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that's it. The problem of tuning higher notes to the stretched harmonics of lower notes would still be present even in a piano tuned using just intonation. Suppose for instance the 2nd harmonic of C2 is 2 cents sharp of where it "ought" to be (which is twice the frequency of C2 itself). Then if you tune C3 (the C in the next octave) to be similarly 2 cents sharp of where it ought to be, it will not cl…

While it is true that the harmonics will be off for any tuning system, octave stretching is relatively new and arises only on equal tempered instruments because it needs to be applied equally to every note, so it sounds terrible if you apply it to unequal tunings where (for example) the distance between C2 and G3 can be 20 cents different than the distance between C#2 and G#3. In equal temperament, the distance is ~2…

As I understand it, stretched tuning in a piano is specifically intended to compensate for inharmonicity, not to compensate for the weaknesses of equal temperament. You can apply stretch to unevenly tempered pianos too, and it should also make those sound better. A formal description of stretched piano tuning is relatively recent (1938, with Railsback's publication of his eponymous curve), but some kind of stretched tuning likely goes back to the first piano, as it happens automatically if you tune the piano against itself by ear.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#77

Post by jacquesm »

i_am_jl wrote: post #68
jacquesm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a touching story, and one thing that it highlights for me is that there will always be people that seem to relish pushing others down to their own level. That's such a frustrating thing.

That's too bad. My takeaway is that there will always be people, like NalNezumi, that are looking to lift you up.

Note the ratio. I wouldn't bet on the 'always'.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#78

Post by i_am_jl »

jacquesm wrote: post #77
i_am_jl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's too bad. My takeaway is that there will always be people, like NalNezumi, that are looking to lift you up.

Note the ratio. I wouldn't bet on the 'always'.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not even sure you're less correct than I am. There sure are a lot of assholes around.

I'm just saying that in a story that goes "Things were bad, people helped and I worked hard, now things are good", it's sad getting stuck focusing on the first part.

Re: The Alexander Piano

#79

Post by aidenn0 »

jacquesm wrote: post #49
crdrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In middle school, ~13 years old or so, one of my classmates set himself a goal of using shop class to make himself a guitar, wasn't half bad either. I regret that I didn't pick up the woodworking bug until later, I have made tables and bedframes and shelves now but still never got around to trying to make my own guitar. Occasionally I get jealous when I see folks with microtonal fretboards.

I helped a friend make his. He got this insanely hard piece of wood for the neck and we spent a good couple of days shaping that. I'm pretty sure that if you were to look closely at that attic today you'd find that dust unchanged, that wood will never rot. It was also very heavy, a small off-cut would not float. I have no idea where he got that wood, I really should ask him because that probably makes for an interest…

How did the blade of your plane handle that wood?

Re: The Alexander Piano

#80

Post by calf »

jacquesm wrote: post #75
calf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I listened to the Clara Schumann piece and I thought the low notes have a "perfectly tinny" sound, as if they were computer-generated on MATLAB. Or like a harpsichord. I assume that's the difference?

I wouldn't call it tinny, I would call the alternative 'muddy'. It's a much more pure tone than you would get from a 'normal' bass string (which is actually quite a complex piece by itself).

Well I can hear a repetitive rattling sound on the low bass notes, but it is rattling very fast and evenly. So I call that tinny.

A pure treble note like from a computer wave form does not rattle like that, to my ears.

A normal piano is supposed to have impure frequencies, it's part of the timbre and what gives it warmth.

Like a chocolate or winey kind of muddy. Artistically I much prefer that.

Post reply on HN