[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[JimWilsonian at aol.com]

Bravo, Ric!   Exceptional post.
Jim Wilson



In a message dated 04-17-09 6:23:18 AM, pianotech-request at ptg.org writes:

> From: Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Aurally pure octaves
> 
> Hi
> 
> I get the feeling most of this discussion surrounding the concept/term
> of "Natural Beats" and similar terms like "aurally pure octaves" gets
> way too hung up on the use of terminology and our human tendency to
> differently interpret just what such terms involve. The whole religious
> side spin to this should in my mind be just left aside. Its down right
> Pythagorean when it comes to it.... leads off in the direction of
> numerology and tarot cards.
> 
> I would point out that however you look at beats, so-called natural or
> conscious use of coincident partials, the claim that we do not need to
> listen to beats is just wrong. One way or another, no mater which way
> you perceive or approach piano sound... tuners are listening to beats to
> achieve a fine tuning. ETD's have proven you can use single partials on
> a calculated curve to achieve a very good tuning. Countless tuners have
> shown that aural use of coincident partials is a perfectly valid tool,
> and those who subscribe to so called "whole sound tuning" are also on
> some level listening to beats. I would go so far as to say that the best
> tuners always finish this way... whether they think about it directly or
> not. That final tweaking pass is listening to how everything sounds...
> how the tuning worked..  and we leave the strict path of any algorithm
> we've used to get us that far and go with what satisfies our ears in a
> more wholistic sense to finish off. You can get really picky in this
> final pass if you want, and I believe this is where the ear can leave
> the ETD behind ..... for clarity and definition.
> 
> I would also make the claim that no ETD can find this sweet spot
> sound... tho some tuning priorities clearly can be used to find this
> easier then others. It kind of lies in the physics of things, along with
> the limitations of electronic listening and processing devices. There is
> too much para-inharmonicity at this level of accuracy for a machine to
> account for to begin with, and ETD's are not contrived to listen in this
> fashion yet in the second place. To do so the would need to
> simultaneously listen to the entire spectrum of at least two different
> notes before deciding the target frequency(s) for the note to be tuned.
> Or at best have stored the needed information of the already tuned note,
> sample the note to be tuned and then calculate that notes target.  This
> clearly is not the case in todays ETD's.
> 
> We are left with the P-12ths issue as a tuning priority itself. IMHO the
> discussion should surround just how using the 12ths priority aligns a
> tuning differently then octave stretch priorities do.  Even from the
> first tunelab version I offered in 2000 one thing was obvious... it was
> more then usable as a tuning approach, and many tuners commented
> immediately on that.  Since then ETD approaches to this have been
> refined and the latest, Stoppers dedicated P-12ths ETD apparently takes
> this to new heights as far as an ETD implementation is concerned.
> 
> Still, the interesting bit, and the bit those who are interested but
> hesitant to buy because that bit is still lacking is how it works... and
> we are back to explaining the P-12ths priority in principal. As I
> said... thats where the discussion should center.
> 
> Cheers
> RicB
> 
> 
>         Posted:
>         Virgil has posited the existence of "natural" beats as
>         theological principle, not a scientific one. He would as surely
>         reject your representation of his perception as he has rejected
>         all representations that do not partake of his modality of
>         hearing. It is a totally circularly intertwined form of "secret
>         knowledge" argument, no argument at all when you come down to
>         it, since who can argue with "secret knowledge"? I speak from
>         direct personal experience here, since Virgil did at one time in
>         our conversation claim that god told him what to hear. It
>         stopped me cold then, and stops me cold now.
> 
>     replied:
>     I've been thinking about this. I went to my first Virgil Smith class
>     over 25 years ago. My reaction was not so different from yours.
>     However, that was then and this is now. For those who have read
>     Virgil's book, they know that Virgil has written up his ideas in a
>     slim volume without the religion and with a conscious attempt to not
>     conflict with scientific principles.  I was drawn to the idea that
>     tuners need not listen to beats at their specific pitch levels,
>     since I am one the tuners who has never heard coincident partials at
>     a their actual pitches.
> 
>     Whole sound tuning is where it's at. It is not secret knowledge.
>     I'll be attempting to demonstrate next week at the Central-West
>     Regional Seminar in Wichita.
> 
> 
> 




**************
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the 
web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090418/2b628729/attachment.html>