ears vs. eyes

[Don]

Hi Susan,

This act of "shading" from one "type" of octave to another "size" is
exactly what most of the tuning "machines" excel at. It is their great
strength, and also their great weakness, for as you point out so clearly
the machine doesn't listen to relative strengths, it can only use the
"assumptions" of the original design coupled with the "tweaks" of the end
user.

So going up the scale at some point we move from a 6:3 to a 4:2. The
machine does 6:3, - 6:3, -- 6:3, ++4:2, +4:2, 4:2 shading gradually from
one type to another. However in pianos wire sizes "jump", so there is no
shading and there are inherent "spikes" in inharmonicity. The bigger and
better the piano the more likely this machine shading approach will shine.
>I have been wondering about something -- as an aural tuner,
>the theory of coincident partials, while understood, never
>really enters into any decisions I make. I don't say, "Ah,
>this piano needs a 6-3 octave ..." The ETD allows one to
>dissect the different partials and make octaves where
>some of them line up more or less exactly -- what I don't
>understand is why one would want them to. The reinforcement
>of certain partials at the expense of others is a balancing
>act. Doesn't each piano (or even certain registers or
>notes on a single piano) have a different profile of partial
>strength? Therefore, wouldn't it be better to let the ear
>decide how they should be balanced? Might it not be better,
>sometimes, to have octave stretches in the cracks, to
>prevent reinforcing an already too-loud and objectionable
>partial?

Regards,
Don Rose, B.Mus., A.M.U.S., A.MUS., R.M.T., R.P.T. Tuner for the Center of
the Arts

mailto:pianotuna@accesscomm.ca

http://us.geocities.com/drpt1948/

3004 Grant Rd.
REGINA, SK
S4S 5G7
306-352-3620 or 1-888-29t-uner