Richard: The most valuable academic course I ever had was High School Physics (my wife is weary of hearing about this!). I value the scientific approach and have designed software to create a tuning for a piano based on known scientific facts. However, we are in an artistic business. Artists see things differently from the scientist. Colors can be defined as one of 4-billion combinations of the prime colors, but Van Gogh painted very well without that information. At my first job after college, I worked where Virgil tuned our pianos every Friday. He might not describe what he's doing so you can understand it, but if you heard his work then (1962) or now, you'd appreciate what he does regardless of the terminology he uses. Today Daunte Culpepper will throw a pass to Randy Moss completely unaware of exactly how much force is used (in quantifiable terms) and the exact trajectory of the path. It's a feel thing that he would have difficulty expressing, yet somewhere 40 yards down the field it will hit Randy right in stride. While you could weigh the ball, plot a curve from the video tape and probably come up with those figures, there would be no point. Art is art, and it's often difficult to quantify or verbally describe - but it's still reality. dave *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 1/13/01 at 3:45 PM Richard Brekne wrote: >Phil Bondi wrote: > >> ..Ed, you're too modest!..but to get back to the Richard/Howard exchange(Hi >> Howard)..natural beats/matching partials..please pardon my rookdom, but >> doesn't inharmonicity play a factor into this?..and if not, why not? >> >> roo(k) > >Yes....well thats one of the real problems with this, at least the way its >presented. Virgil speaks of a Beat phenomena that has (at least) the following >characteristics: > >1 --Octaves can be tuned so that this kind of Beating disapears (is beatless) > >2 --The resulting Octave regardless of register is somewhat wide of a 6:3 >matching partial octave type, and narrow relating to the octave types that >result in the use of Jim Colemans perfect 5ths temperament. > >This is what he himself declares in his article along with a few other goodies. > >I have big problems accepting that a wide 6:3 octave in the upper treble is >going to sound beatless in any mans book. Further... Virgil seems to be >pointing at a universal tuning proceedure, one that works on all pianos in >exactly the same way. Inharmonicity is figured into the equation already if you >get my meaning, it has to be as we are taking a kind of wholistic approach to >listening to coinciden partial beating. If this is possible, then it is because >one can hear it... and if that is so then one can most certainly measure it. >You would think given the age of Virgils "natural beats" theory that someone >would have bumped into and quantified it by now. If not, then its high time it >were done.. or shown to be the imaginary construct it may well be. > >Terminology used in the description of the physics of acoustics as relating to >piano strings in a very misleading sense is not particularily helpfull. It is >perhaps time to demonstrate once and for all just what, if anything at all, >Virgil is talking about. If something turns up then no doubt some new >terminology will need to be used to describe it. > >-- >Richard Brekne >RPT, N.P.T.F. >Bergen, Norway >mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no David M. Porritt dporritt@swbell.net Meadows School of the Arts Southern Methodist University Dallas, TX 75275
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC