วีดีโอ

Why what?

That'd be awesome. Even without standard values, seems digitally, it'd be possible to combine a machine that could tune and listen

Have you seen Carl Radford's video about 432? th-cam.com/video/p0LQ58Gw8-k/w-d-xo.html As for the video you shared, certain parts in the beginning I really liked, and then later was starting to find the temperament painful and annoying. Personally. I'm glad you like it!

​@@dsummerhays Thanks so much for listening! I'm taking close mental notes on everyone's feedback. As far as me actually _liking_ the Precise Temerament, my ear is not conditioned enough to really hear it. So, i'm no even registering the off-putting parts that you mentioned. Also, the 3rds in this tuning are very close to Equal Temperament, so it's not going to be as shocking to the causal compared to something like Mean Meantone tuning. The only real reason I tune to A432 is out of habit because in college I started reading about the history of tuning and how that relates to how we keep time in based on 6's (60 seconds, 60 minutes. Or the 12 ours of day versus the 12 hours of night, and this being akin to Yin & Yang, Black & White, etc). My ear has been accustomed to A432hz tuning because my pianos, keyborads, gutiars, banjo, etc. are all tuned and played by myself at A432hz. // Thanks for the Carl Redford reference-video. I've been doing this a long time, and I actually have a music degree and such, so DO know that i'm aware that aware that A432hz tuning is not an actual tuning. I'm just using the phrasing that is used causally concerning the application of A432 "pitching" of an instrument. // My suspicions about A432 affecting the timbral characteristics were verified with the Carl Redford video. I can confidently say i'm not a techie my nature. Math was always my worst subject. However, I can basically wrap my head around any concept of tuning that, as a professional, you might throw out at me. You don't seem to really be won over by the cosmic implications of A432Hz tuning, but consider that animals themselves dont' sing, call, or cry out in standard A440hz tuning (sorry, "pitch!"). In fact, in my observations they tend to call lower, than A4440 hz, and they DO pitch relativley closer to A432hz. At least A LOT closer to A432 than A4440. Further, if you "beleive" in frequencial healing, espcially on very fomalized instruments like the Rife machine by Dr. Royal Raymond Rife. Those machine produce exact, discreet frequenices that are intended to affect the body on a cellular level concerning specific diseases that the person has. They guy was a real MD, and if you look at his decades-worth of studies, they are extremely in-depth scientific observations. This is also not to mention how SPECIFIC sleep frequencies (alpha state, beta, REM state) how these exact frequencies apply to the music scale if amplified to an auditory level. I feel these questions are VERY important, and, along with color-therapy, they are areas of medicine, biology and cognition itself that have obviously dismissed and even supressed at different times since since big pharma became implimented after the Rockafellers takiing over the funding of hospitals since AT LEAST the 1950's. I forget about the timelines. I try not to think about about that stuff and stay focused on my experimentation and readings. Just clearing up that i'm not necessarly as koo-koo as my channel might....suggest. // In generally there is EVERY reason to simply NOT tune ones brain to A440 Concert Pitch. Your feedback is very much appreciated, so thank you again!

All right, I had a listen and left a comment. I'd be more persuaded by a video that shows more side-by-side comparison.

It’s in C so it should be less rumble!

@@dsummerhays I guess I meant rumble was the wrong word! I heard the major thirds differently (maybe the minor thirds as well.)

Pianos were designed for well temperament in mind. Any evidence that the design fundamentally changed? I understand why you'd think this. I have an entire video on this subject: th-cam.com/video/Q-MHqdyF82A/w-d-xo.html

Hi Daeva, how exciting! Would you let me know what you think? It’s a little spicier than a Victorian temperament but those thirds are a dream! To answer your question, good point. I’m referring to the first Thomas Young. Tuners in the know tend to simply refer to this first one as Thomas Young because the second Thomas Young is essentially a temperament known as Valotti, with a few tweaks. You’ll let me know what you think? Let me know what kind of music are you playing too. Excited for you.

Good to hear from you. Thank you for watching. the kind words mean a lot.

@@dsummerhays To many, equal temperament is a religion

Hehe, indeed, thanks for watching, nice to hear from you! Any well temperament, including Thomas Young, favours the key of C, if by "favours" you mean "has thirds that are the closest to pure" (in this case, ~4 audible beats per second between C3 and E3, as opposed to 7 between F3 and A3). Of course, Chopin (to my knowledge) wrote more pieces for piano in the 3-5 sharp/flat range than in C or F major. It seems that many composers preferred the expressiveness of those high beat-rates, also lost through equal temperament.

Ah, I see. We count our beats until our tuning hatches! I'm taking notes here for when I begin to learn the Precise Temperament, so, thanks. I'll probably try setting it up I Logic Pro (Mac) before looking at the calculations for tuning up my pianos.

@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole yes, I tune by ear!

@@dsummerhays The way _real_ men tune their pianos!

The 5/4 is flatter than the pythagorean third, non? Anyway, musicians throughout history would disagree with this. See for instance, th-cam.com/video/nPN_tTv7C_8/w-d-xo.html That said, in modern piano, we're used to VERY sharp thirds, so the pythagorean may sound better to you, but string instruments should use both pure & pythagorean. That video I sent gives some great examples about how to choose between a just and pythagorean third.

@@dsummerhays I will check out the video. I haue been ſtudying both 5 and 3 limit tuning foꝛ many yeeres now. I haue heard and played them both at length and compoſed foꝛ both at length, and I do realize I am in the very very ſmall minoꝛity in my views. Foꝛ tenne yeeres I was a very feruent aduocate foꝛ 5 limit tuning and keyboard layouts that could handle 5 limit tuning well with enough notes that were ergonomically auailable to the hands/ But it got to a point where the ſheer amounf on notes needed foꝛ a muſicall ſyſtem and the inabilitie foꝛ a a keyboard to accomodate them, my intereſt in 3 limit was kindled again after ruling it out many yeeres pꝛioꝛ becauſe of the maioꝛ thirds being too diſſonant. I at firſt ſought 3 limit tuning as a way of imitating 5 limit but with leſſe notes per octaue, with the 5/4 being 2 cents ſharp of the Pythagoꝛean diminiſhed fourth. But in time I realized that the maioꝛ thirds of Pythagoꝛean were actually the true thirds, euen in choꝛds. That our bꝛain heareth the relationſhip of 4 maioꝛ thirds by an vnbꝛoken chain of 4 fifths and a much cloſer ſimpler relationſhip than the diminiſhed fourth which is 8 fifths down the chain and that via a bꝛoken chain of fifths, with many other notes not in the key ſkipped. And euen though the diminiſhed fourth beated leſſe, it ſounded very out of tune when the muſical context called foꝛ a maioꝛ third. With tuning it really commeth down to the bꝛain and how it is checking foꝛ intonation conſciouſly and vnconſciouſly. Conſciouſly we can condition ourſelues to heare pꝛetty much any thing as in tune if expoſed long enough and entrained. And teaching people that beatleſſe meaneth it is in tune foꝛ euery interual is a type of this conditioning. In the context of real muſicke, as oppoſed to interuals examined in iſolation from muſicall context. People hear 3 limit in tune aboue 5 limit if they are not trained pꝛioꝛ foꝛ 5 limit tuning the vaſt maioꝛitie of the time. Liſtening to muſicke and checking intonation melodically and harmonically ſimultaneouſly one will heare Pythagoꝛean tuning as it is, as true intonation. Becauſe this is not taught from the beginning of muſicke education but rather, either 12 tet oꝛ 5 limit tuning, muſicke doth not get tuned this way euen though it is pꝛeferred by people naturally in moſt ſituations. When there is harſh timbꝛe oꝛ muſical interuals played out of context, people may pꝛefer the 5 limit interuals as ſounds themſelues, but in muſicke the 3 limit interuals are much pꝛeferred by people. The people with the "education" vnfoꝛtunately are the ones doing the tuning and making muſicke, not the auerage perſon who enioyeth muſicke. Muſicke and intonation muſt be ſcrutinized within actual muſicke context and with good and natural timbꝛes, with the perſon checking the intonation vertically and hoꝛizontally at the ſame time. From my experience only Pythagoꝛean ſoundeth completely in tune in both directions at once. 5 limit tuning leadeth to people checking intonation vertically. Doth 12 TET ſound better to me than 5 limit, in a way. But I am not really one foꝛ temperaments at all. I haue heard ſome of the Kimberger temperaments on Vienneſe action pianos and that ſounded better than 12 tet to me but ſtill not as good as pure Pythagoꝛean. I am really foꝛ ſplit key inſtruments. I haue inuented many deſigns oꝛ made impꝛoouements to alreadie exiſting ones. I am not an inſtrument builder though. I think that is where attention ſhould go in terms of inſtruments and intonation going foꝛward, eſpecially foꝛ acouſticke inſtruments. There are many videos on my channel examining and ſhowcaſing this tuning and ſome comparing it with others as well.

@@dsummerhays I iuſt watch the video thou ſent. I actually watched this video yeeres ago and then gaue it a thumbs down. What this woman is aduocating foꝛ is what the woꝛld teacheth foꝛ oꝛcheſtras, to tune "harmonic ſections" as 5 limit and melodic vnaccompanied ones as 3 limit, but this is abſurd. I haue heard many concerts with oꝛcheſtras tuning this way, it is bad becauſe the tuning is inconſiſtent, and it is ſubtley very diſoꝛienting to the liſtener. Euen though they do not heare the changes of intonation vſually, the bꝛain heareth it, and the bꝛain is the one counting and checking the relatioinſhips between the notes, ſo purpoſely going back and foꝛth where notes of the ſame name and function are tuned differently and others are tempered to hide the terrible commas of 5 limit tuning, it is ſubtly yet definitely diſoꝛienting and deſtabilizing to the liſtener. And all becauſe people keep repeating the lie that the 81/64 maioꝛ third is too sharp foꝛ choꝛds. It iuſt is flat out not true, as is clearly heard by the muſicke on my channel. The beating in Pythagoꝛean tuning is harmonic in nature, it is vnlike the beating of 12 TET. Moſt people do not realize this, they conſider all beating to be various foꝛmes of being out of tune, and becauſe 5 limit tuning is impꝛactical (and incoherent), people conclude that there is really no ſuch thing as in tune, it is all relatiue but this is wꝛong. The beating of the 81/64 giueth a difference tone of a lower octaue of the 17th harmonic. And likewiſe all combinations of the Pythagoꝛean interuals yield combination and difference tones that are directly from the harmonic ſeries. The bꝛain can and doth detect this oꝛder in the ſound in addition to the oꝛder of all pitch claſſes being powers of 3 and octaues of thoſe pitch claſſes being determined by powers of 2.

@@RememberGodHolyBible I’m having a lot of trouble reading your comments. There’s a lot of strange characters and long s.

Thank you! It IS fun

Thank you!

I hadn't heard of it!

@@dsummerhays It's quite intriguing. Detailed exercises and observations about hearing tones and chords. Very up the piano-tuners alley. (No puns intended!),

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. You should try it; I'll be curious what you think. I'm going to release a video on this subject so I'll keep you posted. I understand why you have this perspective from a theoretical point of view. Then again, I'm excited for you to discover this: I think the more you play with it, the more you'll realize that 12TET is less good than a Victorian temperament for jazz. Really excited for your exploration. Not saying this is the best example, but th-cam.com/video/AMpJvERgdug/w-d-xo.html and check these out: www.billbremmer.com/ebvt/ Or this th-cam.com/video/9Klyuoky9eM/w-d-xo.html vs. this th-cam.com/video/AVXX-YIB6eo/w-d-xo.html The difference is subtle but most people prefer the Victorian as being somehow vaguely more musical and alive.

Hi there, I found I had many thoughts about your comment, so I made a video, hopefully of interest to you and others, in response. th-cam.com/video/-SRSCOMD3QA/w-d-xo.html

Are you a professional jazz pianist? My impression of professionals in a very competitive field such as music is that one is usually very curious if someone can give offer a competitive advantage (for free, built into the piano). Not saying you'll agree, but many people believe that I'm offering just such an advantage.

To be honest, this question is beyond my pay-grade! Try asking my friend Carl Radford, for instance in a comment on this video. th-cam.com/video/WzlO54ifU_c/w-d-xo.html

Good day sir, I'm confused by your statement. Kimberger is a well temperament. In fact, it's either that or Werkmeister that Bach used to compose over his well tempered clavier, and both well temperaments appear on my digital keyboard. However, for 19th century music, Thomas Young or a Victorian temperament would be appropriate. I believe these should be options on a keyboard. I've seen them on some keyboards but not mine.

Wow, I had no idea about Kirnberger. I has assumed that there would have just been a tuning labels "Well Temperament!" I'm doing some very interesting experiments where I play a sine wave (no fundamentals) thru a vibration speaker on the surface of a guitar. Then I record the sound thru the guitars sound-hole. I'm playing with the idea of starting with a pure single wave-form with generates timbre ONLY thru an acoustic instrument. // What I'd like to do next is play a short Classical work with sine waves, record it from the guitar. Then repeat the process using various historical tunings. Therfore, ALL of the acoustics/timbre from each tuning will be sort of "isolated" form a "pure" frequency. I'm just curious as to what kind of sound this would give to the sinewave recording. (to me, sine waves become irritating after a few bars because the hear wants to hear natural overtones). @@dsummerhays

@@Acoustic-Rabbit-HoleHave fun with those experiments. For a definition of well temperament, you can see my newer video: th-cam.com/video/mssPjL3iXtY/w-d-xo.html

OMG, thanks for the reference. I've actually don't come STUNNING effects with a Bach piece recorded in Logic Pro. I ran it thru the vibration speaker on my guitar and I got the digital piano to sound like a real piano! I cal this the Acoustification Process. It's almost like the opposite of fossilization. I'll relay that video once I repost. I just go banned because I added an Erasure song to the ending credits! @@dsummerhays

@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole I want to mention that I’m suspicious of A432. It’s true that eyes detect certain frequencies and children can be trained hear pitch frequencies. But I personally attribute the supposed benefits of A432 to placebo and the effect of lowering pitch.

Thanks!

I bet! Have you tried others and if so, why do you prefer Werckmeister? I heard it was a bit basic. Also, I'm curious if you tune by ear.

@@dsummerhays I tend to play a lot of 18th century repertoire and to my ears it sounds really satisfying giving nuance to the composers music - crunch when needed, especially in more distant keys. I am an organist as well, so I am experimenting with others through Hauptwerk the organ sampling program. I am lucky enough to have a piano tuner experienced in different temperaments. What are some others you have tried? Thank you for a very interesting video.

​@@MrMarcvusThanks so much for letting me know and for the dialogue. I've only done Bill Bremmer's Equal-Beating Victorian Temperament (pretty mild) and Thomas Young 1. Dr. Jorgensen I'm told believes that Thomas Young is the best balanced of the bunch. You're lucky to have a piano tuner who understands!

@@dsummerhays My friend who ended up with Novaro, liked Thomas Young also. (see my other post)

@@pacifist2829Novaro? (I'm not seeing another post :))

Thanks so much for this comment and so glad you're back in the tuning world. Should pay dividends! I tune by ear. My friend Carl teaches how to tune Thomas Young by ear here: th-cam.com/video/WzlO54ifU_c/w-d-xo.html The very generous Bill Bremmer teaches an Equal Beating Victorian Temperament here: th-cam.com/video/hyojqQetqu0/w-d-xo.html As for using a phone, the right app it can help you. On my iPhone I use PianoMeter and ClearTune.

@@dsummerhays Thank you. I'd like to learn more about the Thomas Young Well Temperament method. Unfortunately, that great nemesis of old age, tinnitus, may keep me from counting some of the beats, which is why I asked about YT temperament tuning via electronic tuning apps. Tuning unisons isn't a problem, but counting 4.1 beats between notes might be. I've tried PianoMeter in an iPad, it's a big improvement over my old StroboConn. Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

@@sincerelyyours7538 Let me know how it goes. The app can teach you to hear better as well.

Yes! What are your favourites?

@@dsummerhays I use Kellner and even Kirnberger III both with 7 rather than 6 perfect fifths but it's taken me a dozen years to tame it and another 5 to perfect it. Here it is in battle on the concert platform th-cam.com/video/Nq9sb4t3N6o/w-d-xo.html

Thanks, not single :) According to the description of Precise tuning, the thirds are even more sharp than equal temperament. To me, I would assume that would sound bad. I'll check it out.

After doing some homework on this, I think Precise tuning sounds worse than Equal temperment. Precisely for the reason I stated: what counts in temperament is the thirds and ability to modulate. The thirds are sharper than in equal temperament.

But if you had to research the tuning before you decided to "think" that Precise Temp sounded worse than Equal Temp then doesn't this show that there is no noticeable apparent difference? // In your defense, however,, I think I may have fooled myself with my own initial statement! I claimed that Precise sounds "better" than Equal Temperament I think was based on my personal use of A432Hz tuning on my own pianos and instruments. I had gotten so used to performing in that pitch -reference that to my hear is sounded "better" since I was tuning to Natural frequencies and frequencies related to Sacred Geometry! I'm guessing that Grant's tuning has the notes fall close to A-432/C-256 pitch (Scientific Tuning). He also as another "version" that is shipped up in reference to A444 Schumann Resonance. This would follow what wold be essentially the Biblical "Solfeggio Frequencies." To me, A440Hz is a weak place to to reference your tunings. The human voice doesn't really want to be there, A440Hz reference is me like a stuck, "sticky" place. Especially when shifting from one vocal register to the other. (Personally, for my own voice I prefer to sing in A432Hz and not A444.) Thanks SO MUCH for relating your observations here on the 3rds. It will really help me as a learn to tune pianist to the new tuning! I'm so enthused. I'm also learning to apply it the Logic Pro program to apply for MIDI/keyboard usage!

​@@Acoustic-Rabbit-HoleI notice a difference and to me Precise Temperament sounds worse. Moreover, my research shows that one reason is that the thirds are sharper. As I explain in this video, the sharpness of thirds has been the key to temperament throughout history, more so than fourths/fifths that are just. I find Precise Temperament sounds less harmonious than equal temperament or other Well Temperaments I know.

Fascinating. I'll have to tune my hear closer to the speakers and try to hear this myself. (Again, as stated, may have been fooled because my ears accustomed to performing in A432Hz tuning-referent.) What's interesting is that R.E. Grant claims this is Precise Temperament IS a form of well-tempering. We've discussed plenty, so maybe at this point will simply dive more into some research here. Thanks for the engaging discussion! Your, _Acoustic Rabbit Hole_ @@dsummerhays

:) Chopin loved the Db range precisely because of the crunch!

Totally agree with you!

Tune your singer to fit in C lol

Amen :)

Btw it may be a good topic for another piano tunning video. Different frequencies through past years and what classic pieces was created with them. 😊

@@radosawrezler1551 it’s a great idea. I actually don’t know the answer. From my perspective, the reference pitch (440hz vs. 435 hz) has less impact on the music than temperament. Gonna think about your suggestion though

Thanks so much for the thoughtful comment. Helps me understand who I’m reaching, which means a lot to me. You may be better off asking for advice on a forum. All wood, as in there’s no cast iron frame? Sometimes it’s marked on the piano what frequency it should be tuned at. Better safe than sorry. I’d go slow bringing it up to whatever pitch.

@@dsummerhays it's interesting because, for me, 432Hz produces a more noticeable sound difference than certain temperaments, particularly those closer to equal temperament. It seems that beginners may also find it easier to distinguish differences between these frequencies. However, this effect might only be apparent when comparing them side by side. With temperament, you can observe it directly while playing the piano, comparing each note live without needing another instrument on the side, if that makes sense.

@@radosawrezler1551 I’m not 100% sure what you mean but tell me if this is it: using 432 hz makes the piano easier to tune because the beat rates will be slower and easier to count and distinguish. By the way, that’s why aural piano tuners tune the midrange first.

@RadfordPiano might be a better person to ask. But I'd say Thomas Young.

Yes, Thomas Young or the Handel Well Temperament work well for Beethoven.

There is only one way to tune equal temperament. However there are infinite ways to tune a Well Temperament. All of those besides ET and meantone are well temperaments. Well temperament just means the keys are uneven (with different schemes). Not sure if I can explain much beyond that.

@@dsummerhays That helped immensily

@@teemum.9023 you’re welcome. Also well temperament implies that all the keys are usable but not equal. Some well temperaments are quite close to equal, while others are very uneven. Victorian temperaments were very close to equal.

I posted a video where I define Well Temperament: th-cam.com/video/mssPjL3iXtY/w-d-xo.html in case it's of interest!

Je n’avais jamais entendu cette citation de Messiaen. Considering how modern his music is, that seems quite significant

Curious, have you ever tried other temperaments and why do you prefer Bach/Lehman?

@@dsummerhays I have tried Serge Cordier's just fifths equal temperament before discovering Bach/Lehman. Very nice and refreshing but singing octaves are a bit surprising, and 12ths do beat as well. I also tried Kirnberger III and Vallotti (a variant of Thomas Young) on my spinet. I can't remember how and when exacty I heard about BL temperament. But I immediately tried it on my spinet, together with a few alternatives proposed by his contradictors, quickly confirming myself that Lehman was right, or at least close to the truth. I therefore adopted it on the piano as well, and did not change since then. The recent outstanding performance of both volumes of Bach's WTC by Andrei Korobeinikov in Paris last month contributed to let more people getting aware of this great temperament. BL tuning also sounds great in more recent piano works by composers like Grieg, Debussy, Lili Boulanger or Ravel.

@@dominiquemanchon9914 Allô Dominique, just to clarify, there are two Thomas Young temperaments. The second one is variant of Valotti, whereas the first one is truly distinct. When people talk about Thomas Young they mean the first one. According to Owen Jorgensen, somewhat the American expert on temperaments, the first Thomas Young is one of the better balanced well-temperaments -- the progression of thirds is balanced and none of the dissonance is too glaring. I will gladly try Lehman-Bach. I've been reading up on this temperament after your comment, thank you. A tuner friend tells me this temperament is a bit less well balanced than the first Thomas Young, but I'll try for myself.

Also, I'd never heard of Serge Cordier's just fifths equal temperament. Thanks, I'll have a listen.

C - D - E - F is known as a fourth, not a quarter :) I believe because it is the fourth note in the scale.

@@dsummerhays what is a quarter then?

@@teemum.9023 A quarter? Not sure I understand what you're asking. A quarter like in math is 1/4.

For Chopin, I do indeed recommend a Thomas Young tuning. Anything before about 1920 will be more in character in Thomas Young. The fifths all being flat, the fourths even more sharp and the thirds quite sharp is equal temperament. Thomas Young isn’t equal so the sharpness/flatness of all the intervals depends on the key. C major will be different than F#. I find most modern music (jazz, musicals) sounds a bit more melodious in a Victorian tuning. To find out for yourself, you can ask the piano tuner to tune both ways for an octave or two and try your music. A word of warning, most piano tuners don’t know how to tune anything but equal temperament. But their ignorance must not be your problem. Insist on having someone who does know how. It’s your instrument so don’t accept anything less. Another word of warning, certain piano tuners will justify their ignorance by claiming that any other way of tuning the piano will damage it (because pianos supposedly aren’t “designed” for anything but ET in mind). I’ll just have to post another video on the subject.

@@dsummerhays That sounds like a social structure question between us and the tuners

I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain another way? @@teemum.9023

In equal temperament, that’s right! In Thomas Young or a Victorian temperament, it depends on the key, as each key will have a unique character or colour.

Musical lingo can indeed be confusing. In math, a fourth is a ratio. In music, a fourth originally means the distance between scale degrees one and four (1 - 2 - 3 - 4, in C major, C - F), however, a fourth is also 2-5 (D-G), 3-6 (E-A), G-C (5-8), A-D (6-9) and B-E (7-10). So like in math, a fourth refers to a ratio between the bottom note to the top note. But one has to understand scales to know why it’s called that.

Thanks for the comment. I’d never heard of this so thanks for pointing it out. I have only just heard of this tuning but my impression is that it’s worse than equal temperament. The thirds and fifths are even sharper than in equal temperament. I’m not sure what you mean by pure tones.

@@dsummerhays Yes - sadly there are many losing their way with 432 and associated concepts

432Hz isn't a tuning system. It's literally just 12-tone equal temperament but you just shift everything down 8Hz. It has 0 advantages, it just sounds slightly lower. You could just play in a lower key.

@@SamChaneyProductions just to clarify (but not defend) the OP apparently the “precise temperament” is different from ET. But like you, I don’t understand why it’s in 432 hz.

Ok, thanks for the reference. Not sure I understand: why 432 Hz? I've looked at this and this tuning does not involve "pure tones", not sure I understand?

Thanks for clarifying !

The comment means a lot, thanks

:) I’m from the US but you’re right, I am fluent in French.

Thank you! I’d be curious what this video is useful for! How does it compare with Persian classical music?

Well, I personally like to learn about aural piano tunning and found your explanations very useful and accurate :) But if you're interested in knowing about the relationship between piano tuning and Iranian music I'd say that in Persian music piano can be tuned in a different style which in each octave, E-flat and A-flat are tuned approximately 36 cents higher to create an about 86 cents interval so that persian scales like Shoor, Navaa, Segaah can be played on the piano correctly.

@@PersianClassicalMusic Oh, I'm learning about this right now, thank you so much. Fascinating!

@@dsummerhays I'm glad you're interested. you may want to search for works of Morteza Mahjoubi which have composed many pure Persian melodies on the piano.

@@PersianClassicalMusic I'm really appreciating this exchange, thank you.

My pleasure! Let me know if you end up using it.