============================
>Although I agree that lens tests need to allow for the subjective
>element, tuning pianos is actually fairly simple according to which
>model of intonation the tuner uses. He can tune each note precisely
>toa given standard (A=440) for even intonation, or he can adjusy
>certain notes higher or lower to achieve just intonation. To many
>ears, even intonation sounds alittle harsh, so just intonation is
>most commonly used.
Oh so true.
============================
You will never see a piano tuned to just intonation. It is impossible
because it does not have enough keys to do that. In just intonation,
A# and Bb are different tones but the piano only has one key dedicated
to both tones.
Pianos are always tuned to equal temperment. There are some Baroque
and Renaissance tunings that are still used for harpsichords and
other keyboards being used for early music. Among these,
Werckmeister II, Werckmeister III, Kirnberger III, and mean tone
are the most common. But when these tunings are used, you cannot
drift too far away from the major key of the tone on which the
tuning is rooted.
But once you get into 19th century music, it is impossible to use
anything other than equal temperment on account of key changes.
Chopin spent much too much time on the black keys for anything
other than equal temperment to be used for playing his music.
But you know, tuning a piano is as much an art as a precise operation.
The very best tuners learn how to hear the beats that arise from the
imprecision in an equally tempered 5th interval, and then get all the
tones set by working around the circle of fifths. Piano tuners will
check a tuning and say things like "that's a nice temperment, obviously
tuned well". You would think this could be done with precision, using
tuning equipment just to set each tone to the right frequency. Indeed
you can, but the result is inferior. There are slight errors in either
process, and they won't be consistent errors if the electronic tuner
is used. A good tuner will use the non-scientific process I described
above and get everything very consistent.
The same holds for lenses. There is a subjective aspect to optical
performance. Color, contrast, bokeh, and other lens characteristics
combine to yield a subjective quality to an image.
But you know, photographers worry too much about optical performance.
The differences between one and another lens usually are dwarfed by
differences in the light actually collected by the lens. Most lenses
will produce a good image if the photo is well executed all the way
around and shot in suitable light. Likewise, when listening to
piano music, the pianist is much more important than the tuner
in terms of how it will sound as long as minimum acceptable standards
of tuning are employed.
You'd never go to a piano recital and then respond when someone asked
how you liked it with, "Well, whoever tuned the piano did a wonderful job."
but photographers do this all the time, commenting on perceived or
expected optical quality when looking at an image. I'd even go further
and say that when someone talks about the success of an image and the
discussion gravitates toward optical quality of the lens, it usually
means the photo was not very interesting.
Joseph
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|