Last octave/stretching, etc.

[Billbrpt@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 12/16/00 8:42:31 AM Central Standard Time, A440A@AOL.COM
 writes:


> <<The problem I see with what you did is that it is purely arbitrary. >>
> 
>     No,  that is not what arbitrary means. 
> arbitrary adj.
> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or 
> principle.
> 

It still sounds arbitrary to me.  You may have had a reason to do it, the 
program that you have previously stated you "would stake your professional 
reputation on" suddenly became inadequate so you picked some numbers 
arbitrarily that you thought might make an improvement.  Of course, you may 
have been somewhat lucky that the horseshoe you threw landed fairly near the 
stake.  

I seem to recall that many people have criticized both my octaves and 
temperament without ever hearing them too.  I also know that musicians don't 
usually complain about a piano tuning unless it is unusually intolerable.

I'd bet any day of the week that I can determine octaves precisely and 
consistently either by ear or using the SAT and be done with the tuning much 
faster than using methods which require the dialing in of so many deviations 
of deviations.  I wonder if I might even be done entirely before you or 
anyone else trying to do what you describe has finished programming.

I, for one, would never enter either a professional or casual situation and 
attempt to tune a piano by applying someone's calculation for a temperament 
to an FAC program and then simply boost the 7th octave by a shot in the dark, 
arbitrary amount.  It's not the way I think about tuning at all.

Bill Bremmer RPT
Madison, Wisconsin

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7a/39/80/28/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--