question for aural tuners

[John Formsma]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 5:25 AM, Allen Wright <akwright at btopenworld.com>
wrote:

>
> But isn't the sound of an octave (or double octave, or whatever) created
> largely by "the coincidences"? When I use tests like the m3-M6, it's in
> combination with listening to the quality of that octave, and to get a fix
> on what size seems to work best in that particular piano; ie. for musical
> reasons. There's certainly nothing hard to hear about that test - or
> listening to beats at the 10-5 level for that matter (especially in medium
> to smaller pianos). To me, those seem like very direct ways of getting at
> the "musicality" of an octave. And if the octaves are consistent all the way
> down, chances are the other intervals will sound good, too.
>

To be sure, yes.  My point was that we can possibly get that correct octave
faster by listening musically.  I do it and have done it both ways.  It is
piano dependent sometimes too.

On the cheaper pianos, I'm normally listening at the 6:3 level and calling
that good.  On better pianos, I'm considering much more, and seeking to
blend the bass better with the rest of the scale.


> I mean, there's always some noise in the bass - it's a matter of choosing
> which noise you prefer.
>

True.  It's always a compromise.  Always a choice of what to blend with
what.

--
JF



> On Jul 19, 2008, at 3:08 AM, John Formsma wrote:
>
> Perhaps if we spent a little bit more time listening to the overall sound
> rather than picking apart coincidences, we would probably spend less time
> testing.  After all, the goal is musicality, not how many ways we can prove
> the width of a particular octave.  I'm speaking to my own self as well as
> anyone else, mind you.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20080719/a97437ed/attachment.html