[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[Ron Nossaman]

> Exactly. I fail to see a difference between the so-called "whole-tone" 
> approach (which is yet unclear in its application) and the use of a 
> dominant partial set. The partial set is part of the whole tone. The 
> whole tone contains the partial set. We all hear it all, all the time, 
> and use it, beware to those who don't. None of us, I think, is saying 
> that we entirely depend on the exact relationship of the 2nd partial of 
> the lower frequency in the octave to the 1st partial (fundamental) of 
> the upper frequency in an octave. The two "approaches" happen _at the 
> same time_ if we are listening with all our ears and with sensitivity..
> 
>  
> 
> The only correction to the statement below I would make is that it is 
> too non-objective. It is not just a _sensation_ of hearing, it is a 
> _real_ hearing of the beats, and it can be at their pitch frequencies or 
> not. As I said, I don't pay much attention anymore to the pitch, but to 
> the dominating beating to which I am highly trained to be able to pluck 
> out of the morass of sound in an interval, octave or not. I am using the 
> "whole tone" as an information source to refine my sense of the 
> interval, but the "whole tone" is the creator and refiner of the beating 
> of the coincident partial set that I am using as my major guide to the 
> correctness of the interval I am seeking.
> 
>  
> 
> Or am I fooling myself?
> 
>  
> 
> Paul

I've never understood the supposed difference. How could 
anyone aurally tune without listening to everything the 
creature has to offer? Doesn't it finally come down to 
"minimum garbage" in too many instances in the *somewhat* less 
than perfect pianos we battle, and as such, doesn't all the 
extant garbage need to be factored in to whatever degree we're 
able and it's willing?

Ron N