Talk:Piano tuning

message: References ASAP - BC 80.242.32.51 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary from 80.242.32.51

message: When introducing a new term, it is acceptable to use "quotes" the first time it appears, but after this it has been defined and they must not be used again. Their purpose is to point out new definitions, and to repeat them slows down the reader as they tend to generate a pause in though. (I find them really annoying.) The next time someone does a major edit, consider cleaning these out.
The table at the bottom is a bit confused. Fortunately it is specified that the "A" in question is 220Hz above the graph (I think it should be part of the graph), but there are a number of problems:
1. There is no such thing as a negative beat rate.
2. "Major thirds" is confusing, as there is only one major third that gives the specified number of beat for each column, and it is not specified whether that major third is up or down.
3. This table doesn't compensate for stretched octaves, and would become increasingly inaccurate if it were extended left and right and attempted on an actual piano.
4. Why the copyright?
I should be mentioned that most piano tuners tune only a small range by beats (usually an octave in the centre of the keyboard), then proceed to tune the rest of the piano by octaves. This will make such a table more useful and applicable to actual piano tuning, while eliminating the need for it to be accurate beyond the given range.
I would also suggest that the table instead of listing "intervals", perhaps should compare two named notes, A against A, A against A#, etc..., a 12×12 grid for practical use in creating that temperament octave. Also, wikipedia has markup language for creating tables, an image file is unnecessary. Rainwarrior 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So four months later I got around to doing the calculations for a temperament octave, and rewrote the rest of the article. I don't think I've actually removed any information that didn't belong elsewhere (ie. the history of A440 belongs at A440; it's just trivia here). I also added a reference to Owen Jorgensen's fantastic book, from which a good deal of my understanding of tuning has come (though I don't have a copy on hand right now, so nothing in particular was a direct quote from that book). - Rainwarrior 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I won't say it is the best possible picture for the topic, but there is a tuning lever on one of the pins. Carboncopy (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some suggestions for improvement

message: When I said above that I would not object to the addition of a few links under such a heading, I had not investigated as to how many of these things there are. I found a site here: List of piano tuning schools, which lists 11 piano tuning schools in the US and one in Canada, for instance. I don't really think we should keep a list on this site, because so many links would clutter the article, and having only a small selection of them (as we do now) distinctly favours them (in a way that is against wikipedia policy, see: Wikipedia:External_links). As well, English Wikipedia readership covers a large geographical area, so a large list would be necessary to properly serve. The same goes for piano tuning supplies: there's actually a great deal of companies (with websites) that sell them, and again, not having a comprehensive list distinctly favours NewOctave. I think we should remove these links to specific companies and only include external links to more inclusive lists like the one mentioned above. Rainwarrior 03:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, especially with the last line, that we should not have links to individual companies, since in my interpretation that violates the general policy against commercial links.  If a link contains general information about piano tuning and supplies for piano tuning, than a more convincing case can be made to keep it.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piano Tuning Schools/Supplies 

message: With our new focus on quality links here, we should evaluate www.ukpianos.co.uk/piano-tuning.html. In my opinion, it does not add anything to the article. It has one paragraph on tuning; the rest of the site is advertisement and sales of equipment, the very items that have gotten most of the other links the boot. I propose it be removed.  It seems to have survived the recent purge; I'll wait to see if others can defend it. Carboncopy 23:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that another user has cut it, along with some others. I guess that settles it! --Carboncopy 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good article and it covers a lot of practical issuses about the physical act of adjusting the tuning pins that the wiki article does not have (that's kind of on my to-do list). - Rainwarrior 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Discussion 

message: "all references require qualified background for instruction. The author admits being a novice. This is not an acceptable link given the subject (this too has been discussed)."
This is not grounds for removing the link (and the concensus from our discussion above favoured keeping the link). Asserting that this link should be removed because its author is a novice is essentially an Ad hominem logical fallacy. To explain why this link should be removed, you must point out the information on it which is wrong. Whether the author is a foolish child or a brilliant expert is irrelevant: it is the information on the page which is important. If you would like to see it removed, tell us what is wrong with the page, not the man. - Rainwarrior 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that your objections to this site have nothing to do with whether the information is correct or not? Earlier you also complained "no prior professional experience indicated for basis of technical instruction", which I was taking to be the more important argument, given that the advertising issue was dealt with by the author of the site, but if I read your words correctly, this is no longer an issue with you? You only object because of the advertising? - Rainwarrior 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The advertising isn't on the linked page, and can be avoided entirely if it is objectionable. The user reading this page is intelligent enough to decide for himself whether or not he wants to see the page with advertising. There is a great deal of useful information on the page, and as such there is much reason to keep the link... unless that information is wrong (which so far, hasn't been addressed, if that is your objection). As for the PTG link: it was not removed by the same person who put the Detwiler link up; check the edit history. Personally, I think it's a good link; I don't know why it was removed. - Rainwarrior 06:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the PTG link. I don't think it need be removed, either. The anonymous user who deleted it felt it "did not fit Wikipedia's international flavour," though I'm not sure what that really means.  In fact, I would guess that PTG would welcome any one from any country to join and use their materials if the same is not available locally.  If there's an analog in another country, link to it or put it in the appropriate language version of Wikipedia.  As a matter of style, I don't think I would give it its own section as it was before, but rather place it in the External links section with a short description.  - Carboncopy 12:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "international flavour" I think was an assumption that the PTG is localized. There were earlier links to piano tuning schools which I complained about because there are probably hundreds of these schools in English speaking countries worldwide, and neither a selective nor detailed list would be appropriate for this page. The PTG, however, is pretty wide reaching as I understand it, which is why I didn't object to it. (But I think the user who did remove it was following the same line of reasoning I was for my earlier complaints about the other links.) - Rainwarrior 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Having a PTG link is entirely appropriate. PTG is an international, non-profit organization which has links to schools, suppliers, mailing lists & newsgroups, manufacturers and publications, to name a few. I suggest the link be restored.2nr Tom (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detwiler link, again 

message: Nothing has changed yet for this page to have been reinstated. Mr. Detwiler, all you need to do is take out the ads and/or the quite  obvious references to them from your text page and we can all move on from this.  Thanks. LONGTIMERPT
:It is not the responsibility of the site creator to remove advertising - he has done more than enough already by creating a text-only page, as a show of good faith. The bottom line is that the information contained on the Detwiler site is factually accurate, and should therefore be included. Any personal discomfort with the advertising is wholly irrelevant in this situation. As for your last comment, it seems like the rest of us have already moved on from this... deeming the site relevant and worthy of including. Taylordonaldson 02:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google ads don't belong on Wikipedia 

message: This recent edit does not add any new information to the article, but merely duplicates information that appears elsewhere and stuffs it into the introduction. What is the purpose of making the introduction more detailed? The user should be able to skim the article and skip the parts he is not interested in; by cramming the introduction full of details (which can't be fully described in the introduction, you -have- to read on to understand them), you're working against the flow for anyone who doesn't want to have to read the whole article. It's confusing rather than clarifying the subject. (The previous edit by Nomenclator has a similar effect.) - Rainwarrior 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Less is more. The first paragraph in particular should be as succinct as possible. There's a lot of dead weight in those recent edits. - Carboncopy 02:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of recent edits? 

message: I type "piano tuner" and get no result. some thing is wrong. Moshe cohen7 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For me, Piano tuner redirects to Piano tuning. - Rainwarrior 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  typing [piano tuner] in search box 

message: I'm sorry, but if I didn't already know how to tune a piano, I would be entirely baffled by this article. It does not shed light on the subject; instead it obscures the facts. And to boot, it is full of errors in grammar.--Nomenclator 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Introduction 

message: How often are pianos tuned: concert pianos, home pianos? How long does it take for a piano to be noticeably off tune? Are any of these addressed in any of the piano articles. I couldn't find it and thought it would be useful information.--Awhislyle 07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an issue, isn't there, that all pianos must be tuned occasionally to stop potential long term damage? (I've heard a figure of one year between tunings, maximum?) Just a short sentence mentioning this in the article would probably save the pianos of a fair number of Wiki readers. Another point for those with pianos at home, again made by one our local technicians, is that some people have their piano tuned twice a year, to correspond with "winter temperatures" and "summer temperatures". Finally, and perhaps this isn't related, but some old pianos can no longer be tuned up to pitch, I've been told. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 19:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How often? 

message: Quote:
A system of temperament can also be known as a set of bearings, a term derived from early treatises on temperament which asserted that a fifth could be flattened "as much as it can bear".
End quote.
I don't trust that etymology of "bearings." D021317c 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take it out. I haven't been able to verify it. - Rainwarrior (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bearings 

message: The link to the page with articles on "Midrange Piano Tuning" and "Octave Types and Distribution" is not spam. Those are serious articles, describing techniques used to set the temperament and then tune the rest of the piano, written by a piano technician.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.218.14 (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I labeled it link spam because you added links to the same website to three wikipedia articles at the same time. You also posted from an IP, rather than a wikipedia account.  Not that these prove you have bad intent, just that it raises red flags. You also replaced an existing link, a link that has been on the page for a long time, and has survived scrutiny (see above discussion.) This page has had its share of link wars in the past, and we don't want to start all that up again. Therefore, please submit your proposed links here on the talk page, and give the other editors some time to check them out. I also recommend you start a wikipedia account; that, too, will help your edits get accepted. Carboncopy (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Since no other editors have chimed in on this, I have reinstated the link. The articles seem to have good information presented well, but not available in other online resources. If another editor thinks differently, feel free to say so. Carboncopy (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link considered spam 

message: This article is filled with awkward language that is very difficult for the reader to decipher. An example: "Tempering an interval produces a beating..." I know there are at least 4 ways to inform the reader about interference frequencies without calling to mind a boxing match before anything else.--Nomenclator (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awkward Language 

message: Saying "[beating is] a fluctuation in intensity due to interference between close (but unequal) pitches."
is the same as saying 
"The rate of beating is equal to the frequency differences of any harmonics that are present for both pitches and that coincide or nearly coincide"
Unless you qualify the second sentence with a comment like "in other word," putting one of these sentences right after the other makes it sound like you are trying to explain 2 different things. This causes confusion.
So, in short, it would be simpler and clearer to say 
"Tempering an interval causes it to beat, which is a fluctuation in intensity due to interference between close (but unequal) pitches. Tempering an interval involves adjusting the rate of beating of any harmonics that are present for both pitches and that coincide or nearly coincide."
There is no need to repeat the definition of beating twice in succession.
Or you could make it clearer by saying.
"Beating is a fluctuation in intensity due to interference between close but unequal pitches." Tempering an interval causes it to beat. What beats are the harmonics that are present for both pitches, what are commonly called "coincident harmonics." "
--Nomenclator (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetitious 

message: The article, and perhaps the discussion too, would be improved by defining the term "sharp", adding a pointer to the term's definition or article, or removing its use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.21.41 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undefined term "sharp" 

message: This article is grossly over-technical !  It has an absolutely massive amount about the relationship between frequencies (which is  relevant, but blinds the ordinary enquirer with science), but it has next to nothing about the actual tools or the physical process or the training of tuners !
I came to this page trying to discover what a Papps Wedge is, apparently a very common piano tuning tool,  but it is not even mentioned !   Darkman101 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Imagine a long, thin clothespin that springs open instead of closed. pic here You squeeze the one end, closing the other end, insert it between two strings, and release it, muting the two strings. It's a handy tool because it's thinner than a rubber wedge mute and you can stick it between the hammer shanks on an upright piano. I think they used to be made out of wood, but they're made of nylon now. I'll have a look over the article and see what I can do about the technical problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Papps Wedge 

message: I am puzzled.  The table of "Equal Temperament beatings" claims that, at least in the middle of the piano keyboard, an equal-tempered perfect fifth will beat somewhere around once per second -- that is, with a frequency around 1 Hz.  The numbers in the table vary from 0.886 Hz to 1.18 Hz.  Some paragraphs later, however, the text claims that:
Without octave stretching, the slow, nearly imperceptible beating of fifths in the temperament region (about one beat every two seconds) would double ...
So which is right?  Is it about one beat every second or about one beat every two seconds?
LyleRamshaw (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  beat frequencies of perfect fifths 

message: This common misconception is shown to be a fallacy if one considers that it wasn't until 1917 that William Braid White formulated a the first accurate method of tuning a pianoforte to ET using beat rates. Before then what was erroneously termed equal temperament was actually quasi-equal temperament.
Of course fretted stringed instruments like the lute have used ET since ancient times (the Rule of 18 was even used in prehistory China) but we're talking about pianos here. For pianos in the 1700s to be ET they would have to be tuned to a fretted instrument but that will only do the middle register... unless you've got a really huge lute (and a really tiny one)! 
Therefore shouldn't the prefix 'quasi' be added? Ningnongtwit (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal temperament in the 1700s? Impossible!