<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I wouldn't say you are crazy at all. I am moving in that direction as well,
and relying less and less on coincident partials for anything more then
rough "ball park" help. I find that octave type tests are becoming less
and less useful as such, and use more the progressive beat rate tests,
and contiguous tests... but in the end even those take second seat to the
cumulative "tone" of any given interval.
<p>RicB
<p>Mmeade1pno@AOL.COM wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>If I tune
my octaves not for partial coincidence, but rather for tone, I almost always
end up with an octave between a 4:2 and a 6:3, being a bit closer to the
6:3 than the 4:2. This is easily checked by using a M3 - M10th test, seeking
an increase to the M10th, then checking the m3 - M6 test for the !2th to
be a slow beat between 1/2 and 1 bps. The m3 will beat at 1/2 to 1 beat
a second faster than the m6. I don't choose my octave spread by beats,
but by tone quality on a very firm blow at the ends of the keys. Crazy
you say? Concert pianists play for tone and projection (I won't say "banging")
and unless you tune this way suprising distortions to the tone and power
appear.</font></font>
<br><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>This, of course, requires
an "expanded" temperament octave. I never tune my temperament by octave
anyway, it must be done for at least an octave and a half to meet the power
requirements of each instrument. Incidentally, this is the only way to
also achieve good double and triple, dare I say, "piano - wide", octaves,
when played in a robust concert artist style.</font></font>
<br>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1>
Michael Meade, RPT</font></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p><font face="arial,helvetica"><font size=-1> </font></font></blockquote>
<p>--
<br>Richard Brekne
<br>RPT, N.P.T.F.
<br>Bergen, Norway
<br><A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>
<br> </html>