<html><body> <DIV>Ok, so what exactly are we saying in this post Susan? on and on and on...:)</DIV> <DIV>Marshall </DIV> <DIV>ps what is MHO, or is it HMO or planned provider? :)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- From: Susan Kline <skline@peak.org> > At 10:13 PM 1/5/2006 -0800, you wrote: > >Sometimes I don't hear the 1 > >cent error, especially in upper octaves. > > Me either, and there, I think, lies an opportunity. > > Consider the "errors" which a tuning must accommodate, > both in the tempering of intervals and in the inharmonicity > and difficult timbre unevenness inherent in all pianos, > especially those which are -- less than perfect. > > But it's all less than perfect. > > We can nudge everything, because there's a margin of > error in our hearing, and in that of even our keen-eared > customers. We can rob a little here, and put it over > there, and (for example) get rid of that one nasty > fourth where there's that break between the wound and > unwound tenor. Never mind that an octave may compress > a little, and some fast-beating intervals wouldn't > measure up quite according to Hoyle. > > Be glad that we don't have to pay attention only to > what an electronic machine tells us. Instead, we get > to go to the source, the sound itself, and impose our > value judgments onto it. Why do people who tune with > an ETD do the unisons without it? Because that fudge > factor works in our favor, giving us control of tone > quality in a way which "exact" frequency control > doesn't. > > Truth be told, I think that a lot of aural tuning, > especially by people like Virgil, incorporates "errors" > a lot bigger (MUCH bigger) than one cent, in the > service of the whole musical sound. > > Just MHO. > > ssssssssnnn > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: http://www.ptg.org/mailman/listinfo/pianotech </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>