I have a client that recently moved to Valdosta, Ga. Does anyone know a tuner that handles that area? I tried the PTG resource and no RPTs were listed. Thank you, Jim Moffett Jim's Piano Service 210-663-1011 <mailto:tune at jimspianoservice.com> mailto:tune at jimspianoservice.com www.jimspianoservice.com From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of William Monroe Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 6:02 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves Sure, sure. I've not met Virgil either. And, I don't really have firsthand knowledge of how he describes what he does. I would certainly never suggest that anyone not try to describe what they do because it would confuse things. I think that idea is central to learning and growth, and conceptually would never suggest any such thing. Occasionally, I've run into folks who use a different verbiage than what is commonly used when they teach, and even less occasionally, those same folks simply refuse commonly accepted definitions of the trade. I believe that type of resistance is troublesome and should be avoided. To be clear, not knowing how Virgil teaches, I'm not trying to draw any specific parallels here. William R. Monroe On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote: Hi William. I understand the resistance to the term Beatless octave to be sure. As far as that goes... I dont really like that term much myself. I brought it up as the term Aurally pure sounds pretty darn close and ..... well.. I suppose that like it or not there are lots of folks out there who just plain think differently and use a different vocabulary to describe what they mean. I've heard it said recently by someone central to all this that Virgil Smith, tho a brilliant tuner... really should not have tried to describe what he was doing simply because most folks think in terms of coincident partials, cents offsets and the rest and his explanations just confused those. Others seem to have responded well to Virgils teachings. I never met him myself. I like to think in terms of coincident partials because its so darned convenient in communicating what I am talking about... but I think we all get into some form of aural tweaking beyond just setting coincidents, or at least simple pairs of them as Ron Koval pointed out. The Sweet Spot seems to work in most everyones vocabulary so I usually use that... but then the term Aurally pure comes in... and associations were brought to mind and so I thought mention it. Cheers RicB I think I get your intention, Ric, in suggesting that there exists a "particular location" where the octave is just as clean sounding and round and lovely as it can be. I simply object to referring to it as a "beatless octave" unless you further define it by its coincident partials. If you choose not to listen to any particular partial alignment, that's fine, but it still exists. I don't know how I'd redefine this octave type/spacing, but I just don't think "beatless octave" is technically accurate or usefully descriptive. Maybe I'm just aging quickly. |;-] William R. Monroe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090309/01c5680c/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC