> inharmonicity is not necessarily a bad thing > which needs to be improved upon. In fact, the > author says it adds to the warmth of the piano. Inh _is_ a good thing. What is not good is when it is not under control by the string maker or piano designer. > same thickness and stiffness in a > small grand as they are in a large grand? Yes, and length as well. > Richard Brekne responded to Richard Moody's post: > >> Piano tuninig is done first and last by beats, not by sound or > >> intonation. > >> --Richard Moody > > > > I would have to take issue with this statement... > > That's exactly what motivated my "science vs art" question on stretching. > In the excerpt above, he seems to favor the "science" side of it, but by > the end of that post he in fact mentioned the "art" part of it. Understanding the science of tuning is nice but not important. There have been and are truly great piano tuners the practice the art of tuning which surpass, aurally, the "science" of tuning. The are is compensating for inequities of scaling and making the piano sound as if those inequities do not exist. I am not arguing the merits of aural vs machine tunings but what I am saying is that I have known some of the best tuners that have lived and they didn't have a machine available to them. So, art and science are part and parcel of our lives and the lines between become blurred beyond separation more often than not. Newton Hunt New Jersey, USA mailto:nhunt@optonline.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC