Robin Hufford wrote: > Richard, > How you would consider the matter closed now, or even thoroughly vetted, > when any able participant should have been aware of the points that you have made > for Askenfelt's view, at the beginning of this discussion, as it is a book on > pianos and there are not that many, is indeed, hard for me to see. One of my opening posts on this thread was along the lines that I had assumed the movement perspective was more or less the correct one, and in spite of that welcomed the discussion. I have willingly looked very closely, to the point of argueing for the compression prespective. I find that one of the best ways of learning is to try and convince yourself that your own views are in error. I was by no means as informed then as I am now, nor am I nearly informed enough now... tho I have learned a bit along the way. What I have learned goes in the direction of largely confirming the transverse motion view. I have mentioned the difficulties I have had along the way with that view, and explained how I feel they have been satisfactorilly resolved. All in all seems to me to be a fair learning adventure, and not hard to discern from the record what my personal development has been. So for me, the disscussion has drawn to a close, pending of course any thing new on the subject matter that should change that situation. Askenfelts view was perhaps known, but not understood (by me) in the context of what bending / flexural waves are. These being satisfactorilly explained solved much of my difficulty in understanding the transverse motion claims. > Surely, this > should not have been a revelation to you, as I don't think it was, nor, for that > matter, to many participating in this discussion. In the sense I have just explained... it was... > So to whom is this answer then > conclusive? to me. I speak for myself only. And conclusive is a rather absolute concept... I just said the present discussion has drawn to a close... for me... ok ?? grin. > Now, we see posted in front of us what was already to hand, and, > apparently in a somewhat ambiguous form at that as regards some of the points at > issue. Perhaps all this was known to you, it was not to me. And I dont share your views on the ambiguousness part. I asked him some direct questions, and got direct answers. > Invite the man into the discussion himself and let him make his own > points. I think not, tho you may do so your self. > I, in fact, considered posting a few days ago to you a quote from > "Five Lectures..." to illustrate the fact of a difference of opinion about this > in the views of those in the academic world that is similar to that roiling the > waters here. I will need to look back and find just exactly what I said then, but to repeat, the resolve I presently feel is due to more recent understandings and explainations given to me. > The last link you posted about violins, which was very interesting > and posted but a few days ago, contains, if memory serves, an intimation of > this. Regards, Robin Hufford . Its all interesting. I have enjoyed every minute of it. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC