Strange call, melodic vs. harmonic

[Nichols]

At 06:02 PM 3/1/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Ron,
>    While I don't disagree with what you mention here I think the
>phenomenon is simpler than that in many cases. I found that even early on
>in my aural tuning career, (I just started using an ETD 3 yrs ago), I
>tuned noticeably sharp if I tuned by playing the octaves in the high
>treble starting with the lower note followed by the higher note rather
>than simultaneously. I've found that tuning that way as opposed to
>simultaneous sounding of the two notes caused me to stretch the notes
>higher. When I sounded the notes together I was able to pick up the beats
>easier and thus stretched them less. I think that perhaps this is more in
>line with what may be happening. Older tuners seemingly can't register
>and react to the decay in a quick enough fashion to hear what's happening
>so we/they overcompensate so as to not have a dead sounding high treble.
>Any Thoughts?
>
>Greg Newell

Thoughts, Greg? (had one once, but....) Actually, there is one thought,
that surfaces every once in a while, (like worms out of a hot cheese log)
re: melodic vs harmonic intervals in the high treble......
  With the pitch change between attack, sustain, and decay, why isn't the
higher note tuned flat (as opposed to sharper) when matched to the
melodically played lower note during its' decay phase? 

Guy