Hi Duaine
Yes I remember some of that when I was last able to join in as well. It
got hard to separate thoughtful posts from hype there for a while :)
There IS a sense of pureness to be had. And this can be created in a
variety of ways.... indeed, sometimes what works for one piece of music
is not quite so wonderful for the next. But all that is very closely
allied to the whole perspective of partials matching. Whether one does
this consciously or has some more intuitive approach that brings them
home is not really so important.
I'm working on a publication about morphing the P-12ths approach I've
been using these past 10 + years or so with octave types. I'll post a
link to it when I get it done. It works really well in just about every
situation.... predictably enough because it utilizes the exact aural
testing methods, (translated to visual feedback of Tune-labs screen)
that has pretty much always automatically taken care of any pianos
inharmonicity. And you get to use your Ears right along side to tweak
as you go.
Cheers
RicB
Richard,
Thank you... I've been thinking that all along. However, there was so
much talk a while back about <<pure>> octaves and the next time I used
my RCT, I saw the selectable amount of stretch, it didn't make sense any
more.
To recap, so when I do a real check of octaves ~(A2 + A3), I just adjust
based on what sounds good on that piano.
Thanks, again,
Duaine
Richard Brekne wrote:
> Duaine...
>
> I think what everyone is trying to tell you is that there
really is no
> such thing as a <<pure>> octave. Nor is there any non relative
> definition of stretch. All octaves in pianos are stretched
one way or
> the other. Our sense of pureness varies from person to
person and
> has to do with just what "stretch" degree we as individuals
find most
> pure/pleasing.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
> Example: how can checking C3 and C4 to be "pure" and
"stretched" at
> the
> same time.
>
> Duaine
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC