natural beats

[kam544@flash.net]

>... Ellis
>recently wrote an article and very eloquently pointed out that what Virgil
>calls "natural beats" is the same thing that all of us hear as a result of
>coincidental partials...
>Howard S. Rosen

Howard, List,

First, let me acknowledge a tremendous reply and response on your part to
my comments.  Most excellent!

Jim Ellis, esteemed member of the Piano Technicians Guild, definitely wrote
a formidable piece to which you refer and is a remarkable individual.
Having once had the opportunity to sit next to him on a bus trip, I became
acutely aware that there is much deepness in the man, much of which I will
never be able to fully appreciate.

As to your statement that he says it is the same thing that all of hear,
ironically, that's just another thing that's not really possible to prove.
There might be some extremely close agreements as to a thing being so, but
proving it so, well, that's another matter.

Interestingly enough, and for the moment, I will go along with that
whatever all of us hear is a definitely a result of coincidental partials
interacting with one another, but add even something further, some of those
not so coincidental partials interacting with one another are part of the
equation.

How each individual chooses to interpret that activity is the relevant
reality.  Some of us choose to block out certain signals received, some of
us don't.  And each piano, each environment, each day, causes us to make
changes in our perception of what is heard and felt.

>...That tells me that you must know
>what the natural beat phenomenon is. Please explain *what it is*!
>   I put
>the question out to many techs and no one seems to be able to explain
>it.

Forgive me, Howard, but I already indicated that I can't really explain
such a thing.  I felt Paul Revenko-Jones and John Formsma offered some
excellent insight to this elusive concept of what for now is being called
"Natural Beat".  I can only call it a gut feeling when exact criteria fail
to produce what ought to be right, but just somehow isn't.

>...my opinion on this matter
>is simply that 'natural beats' is a meaningless expression. At best,it is
>the same thing as the beats we hear resulting from coincidental
>partials.******

That's really okay.  That is your viewpoint, and that makes it completely
valid.

If I may digress somewhat in offering you what I consider to be a parallel
example, and as you, not implying in any form or fashion a personal attack
on anyone, I once sat with a person at lunch who claimed to be an atheist
(that there is a no God belief type thing).

I, being who I am, and traveled the path that I have, know there is such a
thing.  However, there is no way I can prove otherwise to this individual.
So essentially, I don't try, knowing for now that God must be experienced
by the individual, not rationalized or intellectualized as some provable
entity.

What I do accept, is that when someone earnestly seeks the truth in a
matter with complete sincerity, and is willing to give up some cherished
beliefs that might block it, an answer will come, in its own time, that
will most satisfy the seeker.

This may be just another vague illustration and not worthy of
consideration, but hopefully not.  It is what came to me to give at this
time.

Sincerely,

Keith McGavern
Registered Piano Technician
Oklahoma Chapter 731
Piano Technicians Guild
USA