Hi Jim: The perception may have something to do with the close unison idea, but I think it has more to do with the better matching octaves, especially the wider multiple octaves. The beats in the octaves are still more than what one would tolerate in a unison that was not quite perfect. My personal belief is that this is closer to what a lot or good aural tuners have been doing accidentally for a long time. I have noticed that I tend to tune sharper when tuning strictly aurally than when I tune with machine. I think that is because of the perceived need not to tune on the flat side, so I overdo it a little on the sharp side. Many years ago I used to hear people say that they liked my aural tuning better than my machine tuning. I don't hear this anymore. It may be because my machine tuning style is much better now. However, now that I can tune the wider octaves more consistently than I did back then, it may become more popular to tune with the wider octaves. again. I have a couple of very keen customers who will give me feedback soon on this particular idea. Jim Coleman, Sr. On Mon, 26 May 1997 JIMRPT@aol.com wrote: > Dr. JC Sr.; > In a message dated 5/25/97 1:27:31 AM, you wrote: > <<"The piano seems to have a > bigger, fatter sound, I like it.">> > > This is in reference to the stretched octaves, relatively pure fifths and > slightly expanded fourths, tenths, etc. Correct ? > If so, does this kinda reinforce some of the perceptions as expressed by > various persons in the "unisions" thread ?, i.e. not quite pure equals > "bigger, fatter sound"? Or do you think was some other reason for making > this comment ? > Jim Bryant (FL) > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC