Last octave/stretching, etc.

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Greetings, 
Following my posting about using excessive sharpness in the top octave, Bill 
Bremmer writes:

<<The problem I see with what you did is that it is purely arbitrary. >>

    No,  that is not what arbitrary means. 
arbitrary adj.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or 
principle.

     I think it is evident that I had a reason, necessity, and principle 
behind what I did.  This makes it non-arbitrary. (plus, so far, Mr. Bremmer 
is the only one with a problem here, and he never heard the tuning! )

 >>You  simply "jacked up" your FAC program artificially by a number you 
picked out 
of thin air, you didn't match or blend any coincident partials. << 

No, I simply used the tool in a more sophisticated manner than that which Mr. 
Bremmer has  consistantly stated is his preference. ( and just how many 
partials are there in the last five or six notes?) 

>>You could  have ended up in the same range by actually tuning these notes 
to something, not just "punching up numbers" as you admit to having done.<<

    If I wanted to end up in Memphis,  I could forego the car and walk, too.  
Anybody that wants to take the hard route to where they are going is welcome 
to.  I won't even call them foolish for doing so. 
 
Bremmer again: 
>> Of course no one complained, it would have been unprofessional for them to 
have done so. << 

No,  I invite critique of my work, and I charge enough so that there is no 
shyness in my customers about the quality of my work.  It is only 
unprofessional to complain about a cheap tuning.  

>>Next time, read the SAT manual and  see what it says about tuning octaves 
instead of experimenting on the job.>>

      No, I don't need to read the manual again to satisfy my customers.   I 
was not experimenting on the job.  I was tuning the piano to meet the 
specific request of a pianist.  
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT