Ric: Thanks for the info. But my take is that this is not new, but simply affirmation of aural practice which has always been "aural", not mathematical. I also think that the repetition of the phrase "beatless octave" is a disservice to tuning--there is no such thing, and its use by some as descriptive of a phenomenon is as confusing as saying "false beats" when in reality they are real. :-) Paul In a message dated 3/8/2009 5:30:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, ricb at pianostemmer.no writes: Hi Folks.. Reading downwards in the link I supplied to John ie. http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/2009-March/005286.html one finds the following Stopper quote "Since it has been found that mathematical pure octaves does not produce the aural feel of a pure octave, but a slightly stretched octave will do that, the philosophic importance of this tuning is that the old pythagorean tuning is transformed directly into this tuning by simply replacing the "mathematical pure" octaves by "aural pure" octaves." Personally I find this compares very favorably with Virgil Smiths descriptions of the beatless octave. Just thought I'd throw this out there for thought... especially for those of you who adhere to his (Virgil's) tuning style. Think abit about the aural tests you use and put them in the perspective of the present discussion.... Interesting. Cheers RicB **************Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email Toolbar now! (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090308/fe1a2e3a/attachment-0001.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC