In a message dated 02/12/2000 6:12:04 PM Central Standard Time, Richard Brekne writes: << Now compare that to the fact that the higher partials of lower notes tend to be sharp... and increasingly so as one goes up the partial ladder, then their coincidents from higher fundementals. This is the reason for the need to stretch the octaves.. >> Gentlemen, Pardon me for taking up bandwidth again, but this subject has always posed questions for me. I was acquainted some years ago with a guy who was a grad assistant during the Fletcher-Munson studies (at the U. of Chicago? I think?), which involved lots of things, involving such ideas as those concerning reasons for the specific timbre of different instruments, etc. One of the aspects of the study resulted in the "loudness contour" switch that we all have on our stereo sets--which boosts bass and treble response to compensate for low-volume listening, where the human ear does not hear in linear fashion. (Of course, we turn it on and leave it on--we LIKE bass--but that's a whole other story!) Now, my question--IF octaves, both upward and downward, are tuned as best as possible, to a 2:1 octave, with no stretch intended, would the upper octaves SOUND flat, and the lower octaves SOUND sharp? Theoretically, I understand the principle(s) of inharmonicity, at least to an extent, but IF the human ear is not linear in its response, might that not also be something we compensate for by the degree of stretch? And might that also account for some of the variations in the amount of stretch preferred? Just wondering. Stan Ryberg Barrington IL
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC