Normally stretched treble sounds flat

[John D. Chapman]

Jim,
I am not "committed" to the stretched tuning.  And I personally prefer the
sound of the clean double/triple octaves.  I do think it is interesting
how pianists react to the stretch.  None have said "oh! what happened to
your beautiful clean octaves!".  There may be a time and place for
different types of tunings. Why limit yourself?
John

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001, harvey wrote:

> Uh-oh John, now that you put it in this context, I may have to 
> reconsider my approach. Other than clean (and solid) unisons, 
> clean double/triple octaves are where I put a lot of emphasis. 
> 
> Does this mean I must start asking about the artist and scores 
> (Horace and Avery are particularly big on this), then refuse to tune 
> where lot's of  arpeggio's are indicated? 
> 
> Jim Harvey'
> [just when I thought I finally had it right]
> 
> 
> On 14 Feb 2001, at 20:08, John D. Chapman wrote:
> [portion cut]
> > When we use equal temperament we are already compromising
> > everything but the octaves.  If we tune the double octaves pure,
> > or even the triple octaves pure, our octaves can sound good to
> > us, but to many listeners melodic lines will sound cramped, flat
> > in the treble and sharp in the bass.  Here another compromise
> > might help.  Do we want beautiful octaves and cramped
> > arpeggios, or do we compromise the octaves?
> > I feel that this stretched tuning works especially well in big
> > halls, or in situations where the piano needs to carry or cut
> > through a muffling environment. 
> > 
> > John Chapman RPT
> 
>