[pianotech] Aurally pure octaves

[Richard Brekne]

Hi

I get the feeling most of this discussion surrounding the concept/term 
of "Natural Beats" and similar terms like "aurally pure octaves" gets 
way too hung up on the use of terminology and our human tendency to 
differently interpret just what such terms involve. The whole religious 
side spin to this should in my mind be just left aside. Its down right 
Pythagorean when it comes to it.... leads off in the direction of 
numerology and tarot cards.

I would point out that however you look at beats, so-called natural or 
conscious use of coincident partials, the claim that we do not need to 
listen to beats is just wrong. One way or another, no mater which way 
you perceive or approach piano sound... tuners are listening to beats to 
achieve a fine tuning. ETD's have proven you can use single partials on 
a calculated curve to achieve a very good tuning. Countless tuners have 
shown that aural use of coincident partials is a perfectly valid tool, 
and those who subscribe to so called "whole sound tuning" are also on 
some level listening to beats. I would go so far as to say that the best 
tuners always finish this way... whether they think about it directly or 
not. That final tweaking pass is listening to how everything sounds... 
how the tuning worked..  and we leave the strict path of any algorithm 
we've used to get us that far and go with what satisfies our ears in a 
more wholistic sense to finish off. You can get really picky in this 
final pass if you want, and I believe this is where the ear can leave 
the ETD behind ..... for clarity and definition.

I would also make the claim that no ETD can find this sweet spot 
sound... tho some tuning priorities clearly can be used to find this 
easier then others. It kind of lies in the physics of things, along with 
the limitations of electronic listening and processing devices. There is 
too much para-inharmonicity at this level of accuracy for a machine to 
account for to begin with, and ETD's are not contrived to listen in this 
fashion yet in the second place. To do so the would need to 
simultaneously listen to the entire spectrum of at least two different 
notes before deciding the target frequency(s) for the note to be tuned. 
Or at best have stored the needed information of the already tuned note, 
sample the note to be tuned and then calculate that notes target.  This 
clearly is not the case in todays ETD's.

We are left with the P-12ths issue as a tuning priority itself. IMHO the 
discussion should surround just how using the 12ths priority aligns a 
tuning differently then octave stretch priorities do.  Even from the 
first tunelab version I offered in 2000 one thing was obvious... it was 
more then usable as a tuning approach, and many tuners commented 
immediately on that.  Since then ETD approaches to this have been 
refined and the latest, Stoppers dedicated P-12ths ETD apparently takes 
this to new heights as far as an ETD implementation is concerned.

Still, the interesting bit, and the bit those who are interested but 
hesitant to buy because that bit is still lacking is how it works... and 
we are back to explaining the P-12ths priority in principal. As I 
said... thats where the discussion should center.

Cheers
RicB


        Posted:
        Virgil has posited the existence of "natural" beats as
        theological principle, not a scientific one. He would as surely
        reject your representation of his perception as he has rejected
        all representations that do not partake of his modality of
        hearing. It is a totally circularly intertwined form of "secret
        knowledge" argument, no argument at all when you come down to
        it, since who can argue with "secret knowledge"? I speak from
        direct personal experience here, since Virgil did at one time in
        our conversation claim that god told him what to hear. It
        stopped me cold then, and stops me cold now.

    replied:
    I've been thinking about this. I went to my first Virgil Smith class
    over 25 years ago. My reaction was not so different from yours. 
    However, that was then and this is now. For those who have read
    Virgil's book, they know that Virgil has written up his ideas in a
    slim volume without the religion and with a conscious attempt to not
    conflict with scientific principles.  I was drawn to the idea that
    tuners need not listen to beats at their specific pitch levels,
    since I am one the tuners who has never heard coincident partials at
    a their actual pitches.

    Whole sound tuning is where it's at. It is not secret knowledge.
    I'll be attempting to demonstrate next week at the Central-West
    Regional Seminar in Wichita.