Deep Bass Tuning, was Re: Tuning Notes

[David Andersen]

> Anyone mind if I re-title this thread?
Not me; but can we go with "In the Bowels of the Piano?"
> 
> At 11:21 PM -0700 10/19/04, David Andersen wrote:
>> Please tell me, my delightfully-named internet friend,
> 
> I love it. A staid New Englander being envied for his internet
> moniker by a Southern Californian. Jenneetah is the name of the
> 80,000-year Incan High Priestess whom I'm channeling, but there are
> plenty of people signing into chat rooms and mailing lists with
> made-up names. It's like Halloween 52/28.
Uhhh....52...weeks?  And 28....crystal cycles of the Blue Vibration?
Please enlighten us, O wise Jeneetah.
> So you live out in LA and
> *don't* have a power-spirit to channel? <G>
I DO SO have a power-spirit to channel---but my spirit has Tourette's
And very, very bad gas.
> 
>> what in the HELL a
>> 10:5 octave is.
> 
> These ratios are a way of describing interval relationships in terms
> of the coincidental partials involved. Ric B laid it out. But David,
> with great respect for  you and your work, this nomenclature is
> nothing you need in your toolbox. You're doing fine as is.
If you only knew. I'm fooling the world with my high-class jive.  ;--)
> 
>> I am but a humble analog and right-brain listener and tuner.
> 
> Myself as well. Although I came to piano tuning 30+ years ago with a
> good working knowledge of harmony and strong relative pitch, and thus
> discovered coincidental partials early on.
I discovered them early on as well, but as an interesting "piece of the
whole tone" rather than something to focus on. Although for a while in my
career, I tuned the bass precisely so the 2nd partial--the octave and a
5th---was beatless.
> 
> At 2:40 PM -0700 10/18/04, David Andersen wrote:
>> Oooohhhhh, a huge can of worms.
> 
> My comment on the 10:5 octave in the first octave was more
> complicated than it appeared and was designed to spring loose further
> discussion as to the trade-off between zero-beating lower and louder
> octave relationships, vs. higher but busier ones.
Fascinating subject. Again, stretching the bass MUSICALLY, until the
perception of sound drops in your body from the head and neck to the chest
and stomach,and then, for the last six notes on most pianos, a bit lower---
So the fourth above is slowly rolling against the note being tuned---will
usually satisfy most people. For serious players that have, unfortunately,
always had their bass sections left "not stretched enough," in Ric B's
language, the properly stretched bottom end is both a shock and a
revelation. 
> 
> At the beginning of the summer, I had moved from a pure 6:3 in the
> single strings of the Bs at two of my concert stages, to a 10:6.
> Obviously this put some motion in the 2:1 octaves in that very bottom
> end of the keyboard, which to my ears was acceptable, and didn't
> cause anyone else's ears to stumble until that Ravel trio with its
> slow single octaves showed up on the program. My reason for slowing
> down the higher octave relationship at the bottom, was to better
> integrate those high partials with their coincidental partials in the
> middle of the piano.
Understood.  Thank you, Jeneetah.
> 
> As Jenneetah would say, May the Force Be with You, My 21st Century Friend.
Right back at ya with respect and affection.
DA