inharmonicity and "Re: newbie questions: stretching"

[Newton Hunt]

>  inharmonicity is not necessarily a bad thing
>  which needs to be improved upon. In fact, the
> author says it adds to the warmth of the piano.

Inh _is_ a good thing.  What is not good is when it is not under
control by the string maker or piano designer.

> same thickness and stiffness in a 
> small grand as they are in a large grand?

Yes, and length as well.

> Richard Brekne responded to Richard Moody's post:
> >> Piano tuninig is done first and last by beats, not by sound or
> >> intonation.
> >> --Richard Moody
> >
> > I would have to take issue with this statement...
> 
> That's exactly what motivated my "science vs art" question on stretching.
> In the excerpt above, he seems to favor the "science" side of it, but by
> the end of that post he in fact mentioned the "art" part of it.

Understanding the science of tuning is nice but not important.  There
have been and are truly great piano tuners the practice the art of
tuning which surpass, aurally, the "science" of tuning.  The are is
compensating for inequities of scaling and making the piano sound as
if those inequities do not exist.  I am not arguing the merits of
aural vs machine tunings but what I am saying is that I have known
some of the best tuners that have lived and they didn't have a machine
available to them.  

So, art and science are part and parcel of our lives and the lines
between become blurred beyond separation more often than not.

		Newton Hunt
		New Jersey, USA
		mailto:nhunt@optonline.net