I too did not take offence. I was disappointed that I could post my response to the debate with some actual data, but not get an explanation to say that I am wrong. I have only stated what is written in text books to back up my argument. BTW one was written by Reblitz and the other here in Australia by Wayne Stuart which was all the Yamaha books put into one. Can't find my official Yamaha book. If these books are incorrect, I will be having a book burning party. Do I "count" fourths whilst tuning. No. I use them as well as other intervals to achieve what I was taught and examined on. My understanding of achieving E T is that lets say my temperament F3 to F4 is that the first 4th F to A# beats just under 1 beat per second and the last 4th beats just over 1 beat per second. I posted yesterday that we all just say that all 4ths are 1bps. Ron N has stated "close enough to appear that way" and David has stated they 4ths beat at the "same rolling beat" Using the same equations as I presented, to use the same intervals one octave higher will give me 2 beats per second (A4 D5) and then another octave higher is 4 beats per second.(A5 D6)( Yes theory ) Do I concentrate on the 4th in the 5 & 6th octaves. No I listen to octaves, to the 5th and temper with a good progression of 10ths and 17ths like you and probably all others do. Now back to my example temperament. If I presented a piano for (my) examination with the 4ths beating the same.. it will fail.. been there done that.. and that is only the temperament. The 4ths are "poco a poco accelerando" but not too much! If the 4ths gradually increase in speed from my stated F3 F4, what happens after F4. Do they stay the same, decrease or increase, and why? Do they seem to be the same speed? If there is disagreement with my explanation of the temperament, please explain why and I will gladly harass those lecturers and technicians who have given me such a hard time over the years. I will fire up the BBQ and get some beer out of the fridge and have that book burning party. Brian -----Original Message----- From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of William Monroe Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2009 12:37 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] Do fourths beat faster? OK Brian, I thought I was encouraging the debate as well. I chose to SNIP in a starting point to address the entire post - I didn't feel it was necessary to paste the entire (lengthy) post. My reply was simply suggesting that you acknowledge the varied and successful approaches in tuning, nothing more, nothing less. Your post vehemently proclaimed the need for every technician worth his salt to have this kind of thorough grasp on the theory you present. I disagreed with that idea. I pasted the only real part of your post I took issue with. I believe I concurred with the math you presented, yes? I also don't think I suggested that you were an unskilled technician, though I can hardly honestly say that "I'm sure you're a great tuner too." I don't know you, or know of you, and have never heard of you. I'm not one who is too skilled at empty complimentary chatter. So, please don't take offense because I failed to recognize your skills. I acknowledge your understanding of the theory, and I acknowledge your representation of your completed examinations. William R. Monroe > Hi William ... and Paul > > Thanks for your reply. > For the record, I am not ranting, in fact I am enjoying the experience. > You are apparently offended by my sentence that you copied. I was merely > replying to his justifying his ideas by stating he has performed thousands > of tunings. The subject matter is "do fourths beat faster" I passed on my > opinions which are yes. The fourths increase chromatically towards the > treble. I have only passed on the theoretical knowledge with an example to > back my statements. How can this subject be discussed without providing > the > data to prove it? > > > I respect your need to back up your colleague. In fact that is something I > admire in other people. You feel the need to tell me that he is a good > technician but don't acknowledge that I too might know something. I had > already worked out that he is a good technician by his explanation of his > tuning process. I do not need to hear his tuning, as I can work out his > method and I know it works. I do not know him personally, and I have > absolutely no need to have a problem with him. BTW I live in Australia so > how can I have a problem, and this is my 3rd post after joining on 25th > December 2008. > > This subject has been answered in the affirmative by Scott Jackson (also > from Australia and BTW you should read his second post) I have just > provided > the printed data for this debate. The answer in the negative has not been > adequately explained. > > You write that I like the numbers. I don't think of the numbers whilst > tuning. I think of achieving my goal and getting good stability. Do you > think I can tune, or do I need to justify to the debate that I might have > performed a couple of tunings. Am I just a Math Professor having some fun? > I > have been taught by both the apprenticeship and the Japanese system here > in > Australia and followed up with factory training in several factories as > well > as working with touring concert technicians (from different factories)With > each system and technician they teach that you must understand the process > to apply it. So how about the Yamaha tuning test... must be wrong.. > > So after only cutting and pasting one sentence that upset you, do you > agree > or disagree with the subject. There is a saying that there are many ways > to > skin a cat. I just offered my opinion and to back up the debate I provided > some data. I would like some theory on how the 4ths beat at the same > speed. > I will change my tuning if I am wrong. > So to finish, this is not a rant, it is a statement of ideas and training. > I > thought it was an exchange of ideas. i.e debate You took umbrage to one > sentence. I don't know how you assumed that I was attacking David. > My sincere apologies, however it was not written to offend. > > Regards > Brian Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On > Behalf > Of William Monroe > Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2009 1:50 PM > To: pianotech at ptg.org > Subject: Re: [pianotech] Do fourths beat faster? > > SNIP > >> We don't need to discuss how many tunings we have all performed to >> justify >> our knowledge. >> >> Regards >> Brian > > Neither do we need to discuss how many theories and calculations we > can/have/should be doing. You've got the math worked out Brian, that's > clear. But before you continue shouting out against those who don't do > mathematical calculations every time they tune a third/fourth/fifth or > whatever, consider that there are many ways to achieve fine tunings. I > assure you, whatever chasm there is between you and David A. in > communication, and in your chosen thought processes when tuning, when you > listen to one of his tunings (I have) you'll simply have to accept that > his > methodology works. David is an excellent technician and an excellent > tuner, > > and however he thinks about how he does what he does is largely > irrelevant. > > Fantastic tunings can be obtained by technicians with a dizzying range of > theoretical knowledge. You like the numbers, others may not, but the > results speak. As author Piers Anthony once said to a class of english > students (paraphrasing here) "I no more need to know the names of all the > parts of speech to use them properly than I need to know the names of all > the parts of the human body to use them properly." And yes, we can break > this analogy down, but the sentiment is interesting food for thought. > > So, ease up on the ranting and ponder that it really might not be so > linear > (the tuning process, that is). > > William R. Monroe > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1929 - Release Date: > 4/02/2009 > 4:35 PM > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1929 - Release Date: 4/02/2009 4:35 PM
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC