Talk:Piano tuning

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

The statement now appearing in the second sentence of the Introduction:

"...thus requiring slightly different pitches from a theoretical, mathematical standard"

is factually nonsense. A "theoretical, mathematical standard" for pitches of piano notes does not exist. Pitch is a subjective phenomenon, not a scientific measurable with an agreed standard. It has no scientific unit and therefore no "theoretical, mathematical standard". (The use of the term "pitch" in relation to standardised frequencies such as 440 Hz is merely a colloquial convenience).

The Wbfl (is a sockpuppet) objection :"remove implication that tuning involves something other than pitch. it is entirely pitch, however finely adjusted."

is also FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Human pitch perception is not infinitely sensitive. The objection that a change to string tension capable of producing a change to frequency, amplitude, or decay parameters, must also produce a perceptible pitch change, is an incorrect assumption for which there is no supporting evidence.

Tuning ABSOLUTELY DOES involves factors other than pitch! (1) Weinreich "Coupled piano strings, JASA, 62, 1474-1484, 1977; (2) Mori & Bork "The influence of inharmonicity on piano tuning", JASA, February 1999 -- Volume 105, Issue 2, p. 1181. This is to cite merely two peer-reviewed refutations of this editor's unresearched assumption.

Also: what does "interaction between notes" mean to a reader? It is a meaningless statement. The statement "the tuning of precise equal temperament is only the start" implies that (a) "precise equal temperament" as opposed to "equal temperament" is a term of reference already defined, which it is not, and (b) that it is indeed tuned on pianos "at the start".

(a) is meaningless to the reader, and (b) is meaningless and/or factually incorrect.

Re: Equal temperament tuning "is only the start". Equal temperament tuning (to whatever degree it is carried out) persists over the whole tuning process. The fact that an ET "scale" may be tuned "at the start" is irrelevant to this fact.

Ending the sentence in "is only the start" is also grammatically very weak.

Some suggestions for improvement
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)

--Carboncopy 03:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Tired of waiting for someone else to do some cleanup, I have been doing some cleanup myself, mainly removing all those "quotes" and also clarifying some of the opaque phrasing this article seems to have. I am also adding some relevant internal links, including a reference for the history of pitch statement that was flagged for needing a citation.


 * 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)

Ideas for the future of this page: how about some practical information about the actual turning of the pins? Maybe some mention of how hard the high strings are to tune due to various factors, or how the psychoacoustically percieved pitch of lower strings can be found to be drastically different than their actual frequencies dues to inharmonicity. Or how about how the notes should ideally be played so that the matching harmonic frequencies are as equal in amplitude as possible so that the beats are easier to hear? (This is notes to myself for now, unless someone else feels like doing some writing.) - Rainwarrior 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about why the included picture doesn't actually show someone tuning the piano. He appears to be feeling the hammers. ---Paul Baxter, piano technician
 * 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)

I see no references to electronic tuning devices. Noticing how many well-respected tuners have adopted the new technology after decades of aural tuning, I suggest addressing this topic. 2nr Tom (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
User:My2cents wrote: copyright violation - link on resulting page shows www.pianosupply.com as source of product, but does not actually point to this URL

Could you explain what you mean by copyright violation, and why this link isn't eligible to be a part of this article? It is a pretty informative piano tuning link, and I don't see why it should be excluded. Rainwarrior 04:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't understand either. --F a ng Aili 說嗎? 05:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Link restored. The url/link discrepancy at the linked page has apparently been fixed. Carboncopy 23:03, 10 April 2006 (EDT)


 * user:My2cents As we are a community that is hopefully striving for the same goal; good communication is key here (excuse the pun). First, I will address the question of copyright; What appears to have been the initial problem was that pianosupply is a copyrighted name owned by NewOctave Corp. and having the referring page (detwiler.us) point instead to pianosupplies.com (while at the same time using pianosupply.com as the visible link) is not only wrong (perhaps an honest error, to be fair), but just as important, piansupplies.com is neither a manufacturer or licensed school - they are a reseller for other companies (this seems to be the new wave in our industry). That aside, I see that link issue has been remedied-which is welcomed, but personally, I would prefer not to see  Wikipedia tun into the next Google-type advertising agency? The schools and companies that actually are in business as either accredited piano tuning/technology schools and manufacturers of products to assist in honing skills and products germane to the subject matter is much more important than having a website "advertise" a dropshipper, which is exactly what Detwiler.us has done - this isn't about differing with the otherwise viable content.  As well, people who feel strongly about their own knowledge in this field is well and good for discussion and presentation, but if off-site web pages are to be used for reference purposes, then shouldn't we at least require that those pages not also be a guise for advertising outside commercial enterprises?  Comments by others to this thread (particularly the links issue) would be most welcomed. These links should be restored, or at least considered by more than just 2 or 3 people. -thanks to all who contribute.


 * Here is my assessment. The link to a third party in the piano.detwiler.us article is insignificant. To claim that the article is just an advertisement for a dropshipper is an overstatement. In this case, the linked website contains a good bit of relevant information that does not appear in the wiki article. Furthermore, the linked article actually refers to several suppliers (including, as a matter of fact, the real pianosupply.com site itself.) The sites linked to by My2cents then removed by Rainwarrior (Article history comparison of disputed links) are websites essentially advertising a course or selling equipment. In contrast, the piano.detwiler.us page actually discusses the appropriate techniques in detail without any further action required of the visitor. It may have some advertising, but the information the page promises, i.e., how to tune a piano, is right there for anyone to use. (The presence of advertising does not disqualify a link, rather "objectionable amounts of advertising" is discouraged in the Wikipedia link guidelines.) --Carboncopy 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 *  Rainwarrior 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)  Yes, this is essentially my point in keeping the link. The page has a great deal of useful information pertinent to the article. I don't think a website's commercial enterprise should really be much of a deciding factor in whether it is included. In this particular case, the author does appear to have monetary ties to pianosupplies.com. But so what? The fact is that this is a very good website about piano tuning; the reader does not have to buy anything or even leave the page to get to this useful information. This information is valuable to someone who is trying to learn to tune a piano. A link to a place to buy the proper tools should be expected from a site of this type; after all, they are relevant to the task.


 * The two linked pages I removed, on the other hand, had no information. They were, in fact, only advertisement. My2Cents, it's a fair guess that you are affiliated with those websites, and that your primary objection to this website is that it gives a competitor an unfair advantage. My response is that this concern is irrelevant to wikipedia. Whether a linked site has advertising on it doesn't concern the reader looking for information, unless it somehow detract from that information. In this case, it doesn't. Quite the opposite, really, because this advertising is supposed to facilitate the task described.


 * This is the only relevant quote I could find in the wiki policies, from What_Wikipedia_is_not:


 * 3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs.


 * I'd like to see the link restored, but I'll wait to hear from others. Rainwarrior 04:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * user:My2cents Hello to all again :) The core objection (the last editor 198.145.77.29 seemed to affirm my point based on the comments he/she left) has not at all to do with the content as it pertains to piano tuning (or even, who presented it).  The issue of objection lies squarely on the gross proliferation of Google ads presented on the resulting page; 2 prominently shown ads at the top of the page, several others all the way down the left side and even more of them at the bottom of the page (this doesn't even touch on the dozen or so others on the page). Whether or not someone follows these links is irrelevant.  As far as my own affiliations are concerned, I had added 4 different companies (Schaff, NewOctave Corp., Randy Potter School of Piano Technology & The American School of Piano Tuning) for which were removed by Rainwarrior (the link history will show this out to be a true and correct statement).  Two of these firms are well known manufacturers of piano parts and tools and the other 2, accredited schools of piano tuning and technology - all of which are well established corporations in business for many years to educate and supply an industry which is as core to to this topic as the topic itself.  (isn't this what Wikipedia is all about?).  Rainwarrior also stated that it is "a fair guess that I am somehow affiliated" with these firms.  The answer to this is simple - there is none.  Listed were 4 diverse entities, in different parts of the U.S., for whom have no real association each another - other than they all serve the same industry. These links are academic and should be reinstated. Comments please?


 * My assumption is that you are affiliated with NewOctave, based on your complaint that says "copyright violation - link on resulting page shows www.pianosupply.com as source of product, but does not actually point to this URL". If you are not, it is at least a little strange that you consider yourself responsible for protecting their trademark. On April 25, 2006, you added 4 links to pages which provide no information about piano tuning, while removing a link to one that does. I reverted this edit in its entirety because of that removal which included no comment. The "copyright" claim about the website (which was already irrelevant to Wikipedia) had been dealt with by the website author, and three registered users have requested that the link stay. If you would like to begin a new section under external links for "piano tuning supplies" or something of that nature, I would not object to your including three of those four links under there, though the fact that you deliberateled omit the other company "pianosupplies.com" from those links, which by now has been well discussed here, indicates that your interest was not in providing useful links, but rather in disguising your removal of the detweiler.us link. Put your links back, if you like, but don't remove a competitors link to do it, and don't claim that you object to that link because it is commercial, because EVERY link you added was far more commercial than the one you removed. (But don't bring back the "schaff" link, because it was not appropriate: you have to already have an account with that company to even USE that website.) Rainwarrior 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

71.245.183.134 03:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)  Greetings. I happen to be the author of How to Tune a Piano Yourself and have been following the discussion with great interest, as you can imagine. I appreciate the concern of some authors regarding the monitization of external links. Please understand that I created my page several years ago, and only just last year added advertising. My primary goal all along has been to provide a page with useful information. Yeah, it makes a few bucks, but maintaining a website isn't free. Anyway, to demonstrate my commitment to the information over the income, I have created an advertising-free text version for Wikipedia use: piano.detwiler.us/text.html. It retains the essential, practical information of the original site, and omits any direct links or references to commercial resources. While I do provide links to the original formatted (and monitized) site, a visitor from Wikipedia's Piano tuning remains at least one (voluntary) click away from any advertising. Please consider it for inclusion in the external links section. Thanks.


 * I've put it back in. (Personally, I think your willingness to remove your advertising to resolve this dispute is admirable.) Rainwarrior 09:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * user:My2cents Much better (other links restored too (save for Schaff), as per your suggestion above). Hopefully, we are now all in agreement and can move on to other fun stuff.  My point was not that there was a link or any ill will toward anyone contributing, just that the original page appeared rather overt with ads - the goal was not to offend, alienate, trump nor annoy.  As for my making correction to the original copyright matter, I do business with many piano supply companies - this wasn't about favoritism (or affiliation), it was about having valid information presented. Thanks for keeping this discussion constructive  :)


 * Well, we all have our business (unless unemployed). The only thing I ask is that you talk things out on the talk page before repeating a change which had become controversial, which you eventually did. On the matter at hand, I had some further thoughts about the links which you should read below. - Rainwarrior 03:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Piano Tuning Schools/Supplies
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: 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)


 * 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)

Many string intruments have to be tuned by tightening and loosining strings to make the vibrations longer or shorter coming out in a higher pitch or lower pitch. String instruments include violin,viola,cello,bass, harp, guitars, and the piano. Cellos are the best because i play one!!!

External Link Discussion
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)


 * I see that another user has cut it, along with some others. I guess that settles it! --Carboncopy 16:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous user, using an IP involved in past dust-ups about external links on the article page has added this link: In the interest of avoiding yet another external link battle here, I have removed it from the main page and post it here for editors of this page to discuss, and replace if deemed worthy. I, for one, think it is a good site in itself, but does it add to the article in a way useful to a Wikipedia reader? It has been proposed before and not made the cut. -- Carboncopy 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Piano Tuning Techniques & Tools


 * 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)

Detwiler link, again
"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)

I and others obviously disagree. Here is what is being contested as to your assertions (at least 2 others seem to have also made similar complaints): The author contends that "Piano tuning is a surprisingly simple process -snip- piano tuning is very much a skill". This is what we might refer to as an oxymoron. Additionally, even though the author has put up a supposed "text-only" version, several times on this page (including the very top) is the follwing line; "This is the text-only version. Click here for the full version".

Make no mistake, this is still a guise for google-ads. If the author is paying someone to house his page as he seems to suggest above as the reason for having it, this is not an explanation for the content, but rather an excuse for putting Google ads on Wikipedia. I don't think you'd have so many complaining about this tired issue if the information presented was distinctly and purely textual in nature (regardless of the correctness of the material presented). LONGTIMERPT


 * 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)

The link [] should be restored. -- Carboncopy 02:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The advertising remains one click away from the linked page. No Wikipedia user need be involuntarily exposed to it.
 * More importantly, the detractors of the link have not shown any information to be in error. Nor has anyone suggested a better link for what is a topic relevant to the subject. (The oxymoron argument is an issue of style, not of substance.)

I agree, the link should be restored, as it is an informative resource. I also agree with Carboncopy - so far no one has pointed out any information from the site to be erroneous and until that is shown I don't think there's much of an argument for excluding the link. Taylordonaldson 03:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of erroneous material at the link. On the whole, the site is not terrible, but it is also material by someone who is not an expert in the field. One error is his statement "So, if in doubt, tune a shade sharp." This is simply not acceptable as a procedure for a final tuning of a piano. If one is raising the pitch of a piano, it can be necessary, but for a piano which has been well maintained, you should NOT tune the temperment octave sharp. You should tune it to the correct frequencies. Only the highest two octave are generally tuned sharp to compensate for inharmonicity.

Another problem with the article is that is suggests reliance on cheap electronic tuners to measure pitch. These devices are not manufactured to meet the standards of piano tuning. Electonic tuning devices are available from various manufactures specfically for pianos, but they are much more costly than those used for guitar tuning.

Another error is his statement "the best way to keep your piano in tune is to PLAY IT." Playing a piano does nothing to help keep it in tune. Quite the opposite. If you wanted your piano to stay in tune as long as possible, you should never play it. Playing a piano adds tension to the strings, causing them to stretch and change over repeated strikings. The more you play, the faster it will go out of tune. Playing a piano WILL help to keep the moving parts from becoming stiff, but it will not keep it in tune.

I'll leave it to others to decide whether the material as a whole is useful, but without any doubt it contains factual errors.

````Paul Baxter, Piano Technician

my2cents: Long time, no debate.

As stated some weeks ago, quality of content is at still at issue here. So is advertising. Had Mr. Detwiler simply made a real text only version of his opinions, that probably would have settled this book. Instead, he made a page which simply tempts the user to click on the "full version". His original *full version* has exactly the same information, but with google ads. Reality check: there is no full version! If someone is looking at this information and while reading it sees "this isn't really the full version here - you need to go to this page", not a single one of us would refrain from going right for the link. This was obviously the intent by creating the *text only* page. All he has to do is take off the neon billboards telling everyone to go to another page with the same information (but with ads) and we can be done with it. To suggest that his impetus wasn't in any way trying to lure readers to the ad-laden page is a farce and truly disingenuous. I also couldn't help but to notice that the link to the PTG has been removed. This seems rather odd as not only was this removed by the same person putting the Detwiler link up, but the PTG is a non-profit agency devoted to the very topic at issue. Can someone explain why this is even an issue?


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Google ads don't belong on Wikipedia
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)

At least four users who have made significant contributions to Wikipedia have indicated their favour of the link in question. As for yourself, so far your only contributions have been to complain about these links. The only other registered user who has complained is My2cents, who at the time dropped his complaint after the text version of the linked page was created. Even ignoring this, the concensus is that the link stay, four to two. I'm replacing it. - Rainwarrior 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of recent edits?
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)


 * 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)

Huh? "The term temperament refers to a tuning system which tempers the just perfect fifth " -- this is incorrect. "Two different intervals are perceived to be the same when the pairs of pitches involved share the same frequency ratio" makes no sense. The phrase "pairs of pitches involved" is meaningless. You cannot tell which 2, of the 4 pitches involved, are meant by "pair." My edits made the the whole section more succinct, and much much easier to understand. The sentences that I corrected were a mish-mosh of broken English. --Nomenclator 15:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction
"The meaning of the term in tune in the context of piano tuning is not as straightforward as it might seem." It makes no sense to second guess what "in tune" means to someone who is just guessing. Further, I am not sure what "straightforward" means in regard to the meaning of a term. What is the difference between a straightforward meaning and a backwards or sideways meaning. The very first sentence is a bunch of conjecture about what the author thinks other people may be conjecturing. It is irrelevant to the subject of piano tuning to second-guess what people who are looking for info about the subject, might be guessing about it. I suggest we skip the conjecture, and go directly to the subject.

"as it does not refer to the assignment of particular fixed set of pitches as it may with other instruments." I have no reason to think that people might think this. On the contrary, many people know that various instruments are often tuned so that one pitch is tuned to a pitch standard, and the rest of the pitches tuned to that initially-tuned pitch. Again, there is no reason to conjecture about what people "might think."

"Fine piano tuning requires an assessment of the interaction between notes, which is different for every piano,"

You can't tell if the author means the interaction between notes is different for every piano, the notes are different for every piano, or just the assessment of the interaction, is differnt for every piano. The phrase is therefore essentially meaningless and informs the reader of nothing.

"Fine piano tuning requires an assessment of the interaction between notes, which is different for every piano thus in practice requiring slightly different pitches from any theoretical standard."

What is meant by "requiring slightly differnt pitches." Does that mean that notes on the piano need to be tuned to a different pitch than the theoretical pitch, according to the theory of equal temperament? That is an entirely different thing than what the sentence said. That sentence is extraordinarily clumsy. I am not even going to bother pointing out the grammatical errors, just that they contribute to making the meaning unclear.

"In all systems of tuning, every pitch may be derived from its relationship to a chosen fixed pitch."

What an awkward, pseudo-intellectual way of saying that, in every system of tuning, an intitial pitch is tuned to a reference pitch, then the rest of the pitches are tuned in relation to the intitial pitch. "Derived from its relationship" -- is that a different thing than "related"? I think not.--Nomenclator 15:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the introduction could use a bit of a rewrite, maybe, but I don't think what you added was any better than what was there, and took up much more space. (Carboncopy seemed to agree.) With regard the introduction, it seems to be trying to address a few ideas:
 * 1. Tuning a piano is different than tuning most instruments.
 * 2. The precise tuning of individual pianos differs due to the unusually strong inharmonicity.
 * 2. Pianos are usually tuned to equal temperament, using A-440 as a reference.
 * 3. Equal temperament is modified slightly because of the inharmonicity.
 * All of this stuff, though, is covered adequately in the article and should not be outlined in too much detail in the introduction, which I think your changes did. The second paragraph seems fine. As for the temperament section below, I've tidied up the reference to a tempered fifth, but I don't think anything further should be added describing temperaments. There is already an article on temperament which can be referred to for the relevant information. - Rainwarrior 23:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs 1 to 4 that you expressed above seem clear — and perhaps should be substituted for what is in the introduction now. --Nomenclator 16:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

typing [piano tuner] in search box
I type "piano tuner" and get no result. some thing is wrong. Moshe cohen7 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For me, Piano tuner redirects to Piano tuning. - Rainwarrior 22:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Introduction
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)

How often?
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)

The question of how often a piano should be tuned is one I get a lot as an active piano technician. There is, unfortunately, no simple answer. A piano should be tuned as often as needed. A colleague of mine was working for a famous musician for some recording sessions. For the duration of these sessions, he was asked to tune the piano once each day. One piano retailer, Yamaha, suggests that a piano should be tuned four times in its first year and twice per year after that. Link here: http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/Text_WithCatMenu_XC/0,,CNTID%25253D12171%252526CTID%25253D410010,00.html

I haven't seen specific recommendations from other manufacturers, but they may exist as well.

The question os also related to the question of what standard of perfection is being demanded of the piano. For recording or concert purposes, of course, one would want a piano to be freshly tuned. For other uses, it really depends on what the player or listener is willing to tolerate. As a rule of thumb, though, generally two tunings each year will be enough for a piano which is kept in a stable environment (stable temperature and humidity) and which is not subject to very heavy usage.

I'm not at all sure how such information could be integrated into the article.````Paul Baxter, piano technician


 * 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)

Bearings
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)


 * I'll take it out. I haven't been able to verify it. - Rainwarrior (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Link considered spam
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)


 * 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)

Here's the link, http://billbremmer.com/articles/

It was added to other two pages where it also is appropiate (Stretched octave, Stretched tuning). The link is to a page and not to the pdfs to avoid hotlink protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.79.218.14 (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

Awkward Language
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)

Repetitious
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)

Undefined term "sharp"
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)

Beats
In my opinion the following section is confusing, inconsistent and incorrect. "Tempering an interval causes it to beat, which is a fluctuation in perceived sound intensity due to interference between close (but unequal) pitches. 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. It is heard clearly when the difference in pitches of these coincident harmonics is small (less than 20 hertz (Hz)). Because the actual tone of a vibrating piano string is not just one pitch, but a complex of tones arranged in a harmonic series, two strings which are close to a simple harmonic ratio such as a perfect fifth will beat at higher pitches (at their coincident harmonics), due to the difference in pitch between their coincident harmonics. In the case of an interval that is close to a perfect fifth, the strongest beating will be heard at 3 times the fundamental frequency of the lower string (an octave plus a perfect fifth up), and 2 times the frequency of the higher string (an octave up). Where these frequencies can be calculated, a temperament may be tuned aurally by timing the beatings of tempered intervals."

I've noticed that there tend to be disputes on these issues between physicists (and mathematicians, engineers, techies...) and "pracitioners" (musicians, piano tuners, ...) that tend to be rather hostile in tone. I hope to avoid that. I confess to being a physicist who has never taken a music theory course. I believe I have learned a few of the rudimentary relevant definitions over the past few weeks. I most certainly understand "beats" and it is the description of beats that I want to discuss. My plan is to discuss it here in order to clarify the ideas. I think that once properly written the inclusion of these ideas will improve the clarity of the quoted section. I am going to discuss the basic physics of an interval, a fifth in particular. My plan in this post is to raise some points that we can discuss here and once we've come to agreement here only then will we attempt to improve the quoted section I object to. One of the issues that has confused the discussion has to do with harmonics. Harmonics need not enter into the discussion of beats; in my view, they confuse the issue. To make the discussion concrete let us consider the perfect fifth that starts at A440 and ends at E. It is a fifth because it spans 5 notes on the clef and it is "perfect" because it spans seven semi-tones. I'll consider two different tempers, just and equal, so that in one case the E is tuned to 660 Hz and in the other it is tuned as closely as possible to 2^(7/12) 440 Hz = 659.2551138257402... Hz. We first discuss the just case as it is simpler. In the just interval the E is tuned to 660 Hz. WHen discussing periodic motions (such as a vibrating string) it is convenient to speak in terms of the "period". The period is the time over which the motion repeats itself. The period, T, of the A440 vibration is given by: T=1second/440 = .00227272727... seconds. The position of a string vibrating at 440Hz will repeat itself each T. The period, tau_j, of the justly tempered E or 660 Hz vibration, is given by: tau_j = 1second/660 = .00151515... seconds. Note that T/tau_j = 660/440 = 3/2 so that 3 tau_j = 2 T. This is important: the combined signal from the two vibrations is periodic with period 2 T = 3 tau_j. A plot of the signal as a function of time (t) will look periodic to the eye. The "waveform" of the signal from say, t=0 to t=2T is identical to the waveform of the signal from say, t=198 T to t=200 T. On a graph you can superimpose the two waveforms (0-2T and 198T-200T) and the two curves are indistinguishable unless you plot one as say, a solid black line and the other as a dotted red line. The justly tempered interval corresponds to periodic motion and does not beat. The two periods, T and tau_j are said to be "commensurate". Now consider the equal tempered A-E interval. The frequency corresponding to the A is still 440 Hz. The frequency corresponding to the E is now 659.2551138257402... Hz. The period, tau_e, of the E pitch in equal temperament is tau_e=1 second/ (2^(7/12) 440). Then we have that T/tau_e = 2^(7/12) = 1.4983070768766814988 ... . This is to be compared to T/tau_j=3/2 for the just interval. The periods of the A and E waveforms in just tuning are commensurate. The periods of the A and E waveforms in equal tempered tuning are "incommensurate" because (2^(7/12) is irrational). The signal corresponding to the the (ideal) equal tempered interval never repeats itself. If you compare the equal tempered signal from 0 to 2 T to the signal from 198T to 200T the two waveforms are very different. The combined signal of the two vibrations is no longer periodic. In the just case there is interference between the A and E pitches but it repeats itself every .0045 seconds. In the equal tempered case the interference between the A and E pitches is not fixed; the relationship between the two waveforms varies slowly with time so that the interference is sometimes constructive and other times destructive. Although the beat frequency is related to the difference between the 660Hz justly tempered E and the 659.255... equal tempered E: vu_beat ~= 3/4 Hz the beating itself is due to the lack of commensurability of the A and E waveforms in the equal tempered case, NOT to there being two nearly equal frequencies.The only two frequencies involved are A440 and the E at 2^(7/12) 440 and they are far from equal. I would be happy to produce some graphs showing this stuff. If any one cares about this perhaps we can discuss? I think it would be nice to have two audio samples of the A-E interval in the two different temperaments. I have no idea if my ears are good enough to hear the difference or not but it would be interesting just the same. I'll stop here and wait to see if I get any feedback on this. I'm not proposing that the text I've written here in "talk" go into the article. Rather, the ideas that I've tried to describe here belong in the article. It should probably be shortened and made palatable to a nonmathematical audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnepearson (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be easier if you suggested a few particular changes that would improve the passage in question.
 * Just FYI, just intonation is not a temperament; the various temperaments are departures from just intonation.
 * Further FYI, when tuning simultaneously sounding strings to a perfect fifth, one possible way is to eliminate the heterodyne beats between the third "harmonic" of the lower string and the second "harmonic" of the higher string. (I use scare quotes around "harmonic" since they are in fact overtones, but on a well-made string the overtones come pretty close to a harmonic relation to the fundamental. Overtones and harmonics may be numbered differently, adding to the confusion. For strings justly tuned at A4 and E5, the common frequency is 1320 Hz.) Experienced string players can in fact hear those beats, and may describe them as a "grind" between two mistuned strings. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. THat's one of the reasons I didn't want to try to just start replacing text; I was sure to screw up some of the terminology. The first two sentences are: "Tempering an interval causes it to beat, which is a fluctuation in perceived sound intensity due to interference between close (but unequal) pitches. 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." First although beating is often described in terms of "close but unequal" pitches it actually doesn't rely on closeness. Beats are caused by incommensurate periods. This is what causes the beating the equal tempered AE 5th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnepearson (talk • contribs) 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have some wording you'd like to suggest for that section, you can copy and paste it to this talk page and edit away without screwing up the article prematurely.


 * You say "The only two frequencies involved are A440 and the E at 2^(7/12) 440 and they are far from equal." which looks like you assume that a hammered string produces a pure sinusoid at its fundamental frequency. This is not the case; there are definitely overtones present. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not assuming anything about the physics of hammered strings. I am talking about what causes beating. It is not caused by interference of nearly equal overtones. In the example of A440-E the two fundamental frequencies beat (unless the E is tuned to 660Hz) and the beating of those two frequencies has nothing to do with overtones. This sentence: "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." is simply false. Near coincidence between two different frequencies is not what causes beating and the beat frequency isn't set by the difference between nearly coincident harmonics. The simplest case of beating involves two nearly coincident frequencies but it isn't the near coincidence that causes the beating. Beating is caused by two vibrations whose phase difference varies at some finite rate that is slow compared to the fundamental frequencies. The mathematically simplest case corresponds to near coincidence and I fear that people have assumed that it is the near coincidence that causes beating. When you have two nearly (but not exactly) coincident waveforms it is easy to speak about the relative phase of the wave forms. If the peaks and troughs of the two nearly coincident waveforms coincide (so that when one wave form is at its peak the other is too and similarly for the troughs) the wave forms are said to be "in phase". When the wave forms are in phase they interfere constructively. If the wave forms are out of phase so that when one is at its peak the other is at its trough they interfere destructively. If the phase relationship varies slowly with time (slow compared to the fundamental frequency) the two vibrations "beat". The same thing happens with wave forms that don't have nearly coincident frequencies as is the case with equal tempered fifths. The fundamental cause of beating has nothing to do with overtones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnepearson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The phases of a 440 Hz signal and a 660 Hz signal proceed at such different rates that it makes little sense to call the phase difference "slowly varying." I just spent a few minutes playing with Audacity, with sines and sawtooth waves at 440+660, 440+659, 440+442, and so on, both stereo and additively mixed to mono. With sinewaves, a tempered fifth does not beat, at least not as an audible amplitude pulsation with a repetition rate of largish fractions of a second. With harmonic-rich sawtooth waves, the beat is clearly audible. I have tuned pianos in the past, and I tune bowed and plucked strings every day, often by exciting overtones on adjacent strings. (Lightly stop a nodal point, and pick or bow close to the bridge.) "Beating has nothing to do with overtones" does not seem to apply in the context of tuning tempered fifths. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I didn't say it correctly. But the basic point I am trying to make still stands. The sum of two sine waves with frequencies that are not quite related by 3/2 does beat. If their frequency ratio is exactly 3/2 there are no beats. Call the period of the low frequency signal T. Call the period of the high frequency signal tau. If the frequency ratio = 3/2 then tau = 2/3 T. The period of the signal is given by the smallest positive integers m and n such that mT = n tau. Thus we have mT = n 2/3 T so we have to find m and n so that 3mT=2nT. The smallest pair of positive integers that solve this is: m=2, n=3 the period of the signal is 2T = 3 tau. Now consider the situation in which the frequencies are nearly but not exactly related in the ratio 3/2. In that case tau = (2/3 + epsilon) T where epsilon is some small number. When epsilon is zero we're back to the case with out beats otherwise the signal is tempered and it will beat. Again the period of the combined signal is found from the smallest pair of integers such that m T = n tau. Let's take epsilon = 1/1000. What is the period of the combined signal? We have 3 m T = (2+ 3epsilon) T = (2+.003) n T. Thus we have 3 m = (2+.003) n. The smallest integer pair that solves this is m = 2003 n =3000. What happened? Before we had a nice short period? Now we have a very long period. Even though we only changed the periods slightly? This signal beats and it repeats itself every 3000 tau which is seconds for T =1/440 seconds. More generally the combined signal won't ever repeat itself because epsilon will be irrational but that is a technical detail. The reason the two signals beat is the following. Think of what happens when you add two sine waves with frequency ratio 3/2. Assume both waves start at a node and both rising at time t=0. Then at time t=T the 440Hz signal will again at a node and rising while the 660Hz signal will be at a node but the signal will be falling. Then at time t=2T the two signals will have the same relationship they did at t=0, both at nodes and both rising. Now if tau is perturbed away from the acoustically pure 2/3 T they will not both be at nodes at time t=T. The 440Hz signal will be at a node but the perturbed 660 Hz signal with period tau = (2/3+epsilon) T will not be. If you look at where the signal with period tau has nodes and compare the distance to the closest node of the 440 Hz signal that will wander slowly and that is the phenomenon that causes beating. Whether you can hear this with a signal generator or not I have no idea but it is a mathematical certainty that the two fundamentals beat. Johnepearson (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "If you look at where the signal with period tau has nodes and compare the distance to the closest node of the 440 Hz signal that will wander slowly and that is the phenomenon that causes beating."
 * What you just described are not beats as heard by musicians or piano tuners. Human ears are not sensitive to such "wandering" of zero-crossings. (Nodes are another thing, having to do with vibrating bodies with approximately linear geometry in the simplest case, such as strings or air columns. Nodes are distributed through space, while zero-crossings are distributed in time.)
 * While it is not strictly true to describe the function of the basilar membrane as a Fourier decomposition, it can often be useful to think of it in those terms. The ear will respond to the mixing product, or difference tone, of overtones at or near 2x or 3x (near 1320 Hz for the example of A4 and E5) and will detect beats when those overtones are not in unison. In the A4/E5 example, the fundamentals do indeed beat, but at their sum and difference frequencies, 220 Hz and 1100 Hz. That is less in the realm of tuning beats and more along the lines of the mixing tones familiar to close harmony a cappella groups as the "high bird."
 * Piano tuning depended on the human ear long before storage oscilloscopes were available. It seems most appropriate to present it in terms of audible phenomena as they are actually used in this art, rather than mathematical abstraction. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The amplitude of a signal that is composed of two sine waves with frequencies 440Hz and 659.255 Hz modulate with a frequency on the order of 1 Hz although the amplitude doesn't drop through zero. Johnepearson (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What you get in that case works more like a DC offset varying on the order of 1 Hz. It is not, however, an audible amplitude change. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Papps Wedge
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)
 * 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)

beat frequencies of perfect fifths
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)

Good question, Lyle. It is I who made that error quite some time ago and I hope I've remedied it now. But it is more complicated than the table of beating intervals shows. First, the table does not extend to the bottom of the temperament, where the lowest beating fifth, F to C, will beat what, .7 times a second or so? I am a concert technician, but everything is about what I hear; I don't much pay attention to the mathematics. But when you realize that octaves on a concert grand are stretched so that the perfect fifth, extended two-and-a-half octves, stays virtually beatless, you realize that a similar stretch is happening throughout the temperament region. So in the table, look at the frequencies of the lower and higher Cs. They are 2:1, but in actuality they will be slightly wider, and the constituent fifths between them will beat a tad more slowly than the table would suggest. Again, I don't go in for the mathematics of all this much, but I believe that to be true.Joelthesecond (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Equal temperament in the 1700s? Impossible!
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)

"Trichord"?
The article refers to the three strings for a note as its "trichord", but the various definitions given by the trichord article all involve three different notes, rather than the unison described here.

Are we misusing the term "trichord"? Because it sure seems that way to me. TypoBoy (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. It appears that "trichord" also can mean an instrument with three strings or courses, such as the old trichordo bouzouki. The piano article mentions bichords (two strings per note) in the middle or tenor range, and trichords in the upper or treble range. Perhaps some knowledgeable editor can tell us whether this is a common usage, or something made up which has persisted in wikipedia. Just plain Bill (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like this quirky usage of "trichord" was introduced to this article in this 2014 edit, and first added to the Piano article in this 2010 edit. Both were made by the same editor, . TypoBoy (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Could "pair" and "triplet" work? No particular hurry... That user has been showing up about once a month lately. Just plain Bill (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am the editor who used the terms "bichord" and trichord". I've been a Steinway grand piano restorer for 40 years and done concert prep for some of the world's most famous concert pianists. These are the only piano terms that we have for "two strings per note" and "three strings per note". From the Wikipedia "Piano" page: "If all strings throughout the piano's compass were individual (monochord), the massive bass strings would overpower the upper ranges. Makers compensate for this with the use of double (bichord) strings in the tenor and triple (trichord) strings throughout the treble."

If you're still unsure, this from A. E. Sanderson, the inventor of the Accu-Tuner, from an article in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America: "Stringing-scale design in pianos comprises...the number of strings per note (unichord, bichord, or trichord)..."Joelthesecond (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply! It's clear that the term "trichord" is used in this sense by (at least some) experts. But, since Wikipedia is meant for a general audience, we should include a link to a definition.
 * This is where things get tricky; I haven't been able to find a source defining the term in this sense. Your say-so isn't enough, even though you're an expert, because Wikipedia has a policy about what sources are fit to cite. We can't cite the piano article, because Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia. (Also, I think you introduced the term on that page too.)
 * I find it easy to believe that "trichord" is the only word for "three strings per note". But we aren't required to convey that idea in a single word.
 * We should find a citation for this usage, or drop it. TypoBoy (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)