[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[Ed Sutton]

The terms "Pure Octaves" and "Beatless Octaves" have a kind of poetic 
beauty. If you can say the words, surely they must be true, yes?

Perhaps what we are talking about is not an objective, categorical truth, 
but more a mode of perception, a way of thinking which influences how a 
person hears.

A few months ago I asked Virgil Smith if he could tune a beatless octave 
across the mid-range of a Yamaha P-22 or a Kimball console. He paused for a 
while, then answered "I suppose I've only tuned large grand pianos."  Does 
this help anyone's understanding?

I believe Virgil is a kind person, a careful attentive tuner who has 
inspired many people by demonstrating how well a careful aural tuner can 
tune a piano. I'm not sure his attempts to argue for "Natural" versus 
"Scientific" hearing is productive on its own terms. His argument for 
"natural" beats is ultimately based in theology.

Years ago I worked in a psycho-physics research laboratory, and am very 
aware that "thought images" can influence and improve performance. Imagining 
that the violin bow is floating in the air can be a great way to improve 
bowing, but it doesn't mean the violinists should actually let go of the 
"weightless" bow.

I would like to have an experiment where master tuners who hear "beatless" 
octaves and master tuners who do not hear "beatless" octaves recorded 
numerous octaves in their "best" style. Then, I'd like to scramble the 
recordings and see if anyone (master tuners included) could tell the 
difference.

Ed Sutton (Journal Editor)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Moy" <jim at moypiano.com>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves


Also, the February 2009 issue of the PTG Journal devotes the entire
"Letters to the Editor" section to a letter from Virgil, on this
precise subject.  As a relative newcomer to the PTG, I find this
approach fascinating, though mysterious.  I have not yet discovered a
method to make the leap from tuning by partials, to tuning by 'natural
beats.'  I guess I will keep tuning, and prodding around the outside
the shell of this conundrum until I make some sort of breakthrough.

Jim

On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Jim Moy <jim at moypiano.com> wrote:
> I happen to have read recently, and have in front of me, a copy of
> Virgil Smith's "New Techniques For Superior Aural Tuning," 2nd Ed.
> (Available at the PTG store, BTW) Thought it might be useful to have
> a few excerpts:
>
> Ch.1
>
> "...it is not necessary to hear the pitch of single matching partials
> to hear beats for aural tuning, because of the ability of the ear to
> combine all the partials of a note into one pitch.
> ...
> "When an interval is expanded or contracted to produce beats, the ear
> (when listening to the two notes normally) combines all the partials
> of both notes into two single pitches, just like it does with one note
> alone. In addition, it combines all the beats between the partials
> into one beat. The beat then comes from all the partials instead of
> one set of partials.
> ...
> "This beat can be tuned to the desired speed or eliminated completely.
> This means that beats can be heard two different ways: between single
> matching partials, and between notes as the ear hears them naturally
> with all the partials of each note sounding.
> ...
> "For clarity, one will be referred to as 'partial beats,' and the
> other as 'natural beats.' It is important that every tuner clearly
> understand this, for failure to understand this has lead to much
> confusion in the past. ... The finest quality aural tuning can be
> accomplished by dealing only with natural beats.
> ...
> "In some cases, the beat at the single matching partial level is
> different when all the partials are contributing to the one beat."
>
> I hope I have not mis-represented Virgil's intent, by not quoting in
> its entirety. I am still striving to grok in fullness what I have
> read in his book. I experience what he is describing when I play and
> listen. But when I go to put it in practice tuning, I still feel as
> if I am encountering a Zen puzzle of sorts.
>
> Jim Moy
>
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> 
> wrote:
>> Hi William and others.
>>
>> Nice stuff... sorry bout the rest.... seems to never go away.. but let 
>> go.
>> I have to agree with the below... I like to think in terms of coincident
>> partials when trying to describe things tuning wise... phrases like 
>> beatless
>> octave and aurally perfect octaves require me to think out of my own
>> box...which I can do... but its clear that a lot of confusion gets 
>> stirred
>> up as too many start mixing vocabularies.
>>
>> So what do we call what Virgil refers to as the beatless octave and now
>> surfaces anew in the term aurally pure ? Can we put a name on it... or do 
>> we
>> have to use phrases like you touch on below ?
>>
>> Cheers
>> RicB
>>
>>
>> No problem with any of this. I agree wholeheartedly. And, as long
>> as you continue to phrase things such: "sense of beatlessness", or,
>> "perceived beatlessness," I could accept it. But I think it would
>> be better phrased with regards to cleanliness than beat speeds, e.g.
>> trying to tune an octave or dbl octave so that the combination of
>> coincident partials sound "as clean as possible."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>