[pianotech] Do fourths beat faster?

[William Monroe]

OK Brian,

I thought I was encouraging the debate as well.  I chose to SNIP in a 
starting point to address the entire post - I didn't feel it was necessary 
to paste the entire (lengthy) post.  My reply was simply suggesting that you 
acknowledge the varied and successful approaches in tuning, nothing more, 
nothing less.  Your post vehemently proclaimed the need for every technician 
worth his salt to have this kind of thorough grasp on the theory you 
present.  I disagreed with that idea.

I pasted the only real part of your post I took issue with.  I believe I 
concurred with the math you presented, yes?  I also don't think I suggested 
that you were an unskilled technician, though I can hardly honestly say that 
"I'm sure you're a great tuner too."  I don't know you, or know of you, and 
have never heard of you.  I'm not one who is too skilled at empty 
complimentary chatter.  So, please don't take offense because I failed to 
recognize your skills.  I acknowledge your understanding of the theory, and 
I acknowledge your representation of your completed examinations.

William R. Monroe




> Hi William ... and Paul
>
> Thanks for your reply.
> For the record, I am not ranting, in fact I am enjoying the experience.
> You are apparently offended by my sentence that you copied. I was merely
> replying to his justifying his ideas by stating he has performed thousands
> of tunings. The subject matter is "do fourths beat faster" I passed on my
> opinions which are yes. The fourths increase chromatically towards the
> treble. I have only passed on the theoretical knowledge with an example to
> back my statements. How can this subject be discussed without providing 
> the
> data to prove it?
>
>
> I respect your need to back up your colleague. In fact that is something I
> admire in other people. You feel the need to tell me that he is a good
> technician but don't acknowledge that I too might know something. I had
> already worked out that he is a good technician by his explanation of his
> tuning process. I do not need to hear his tuning, as I can work out his
> method and I know it works.  I do not know him personally, and I have
> absolutely no need to have a problem with him. BTW I live in Australia so
> how can I have a problem, and this is my 3rd post after joining on 25th
> December 2008.
>
> This subject has been answered in the affirmative by Scott Jackson (also
> from Australia and BTW you should read his second post) I have just 
> provided
> the printed data for this debate. The answer in the negative has not been
> adequately explained.
>
> You write that I like the numbers. I don't think of the numbers whilst
> tuning. I think of achieving my goal and getting good stability. Do you
> think I can tune, or do I need to justify to the debate that I might have
> performed a couple of tunings. Am I just a Math Professor having some fun? 
> I
> have been taught by both the apprenticeship and the Japanese system here 
> in
> Australia and followed up with factory training in several factories as 
> well
> as working with touring concert technicians (from different factories)With
> each system and technician they teach that you must understand the process
> to apply it. So how about the Yamaha tuning test... must be wrong..
>
> So after only cutting and pasting one sentence that upset you, do you 
> agree
> or disagree with the subject. There is a saying that there are many ways 
> to
> skin a cat. I just offered my opinion and to back up the debate I provided
> some data. I would like some theory on how the 4ths beat at the same 
> speed.
> I will change my tuning if I am wrong.
> So to finish, this is not a rant, it is a statement of ideas and training. 
> I
> thought it was an exchange of ideas. i.e debate You took umbrage to one
> sentence. I don't know how you assumed that I was attacking David.
> My sincere apologies, however it was not written to offend.
>
> Regards
> Brian Wilson
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On 
> Behalf
> Of William Monroe
> Sent: Saturday, 7 February 2009 1:50 PM
> To: pianotech at ptg.org
> Subject: Re: [pianotech] Do fourths beat faster?
>
> SNIP
>
>> We don't need to discuss how many tunings we have all performed to 
>> justify
>> our knowledge.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>
> Neither do we need to discuss how many theories and calculations we
> can/have/should be doing.  You've got the math worked out Brian, that's
> clear.  But before you continue shouting out against those who don't do
> mathematical calculations every time they tune a third/fourth/fifth or
> whatever, consider that there are many ways to achieve fine tunings.  I
> assure you, whatever chasm there is between you and David A. in
> communication, and in your chosen thought processes when tuning, when you
> listen to one of his tunings (I have) you'll simply have to accept that 
> his
> methodology works.  David is an excellent technician and an excellent 
> tuner,
>
> and however he thinks about how he does what he does is largely 
> irrelevant.
>
> Fantastic tunings can be obtained by technicians with a dizzying range of
> theoretical knowledge.  You like the numbers, others may not, but the
> results speak.  As author Piers Anthony once said to a class of english
> students (paraphrasing here) "I no more need to know the names of all the
> parts of speech to use them properly than I need to know the names of all
> the parts of the human body to use them properly."  And yes, we can break
> this analogy down, but the sentiment is interesting food for thought.
>
> So, ease up on the ranting and ponder that it really might not be so 
> linear
> (the tuning process, that is).
>
> William R. Monroe
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1929 - Release Date: 
> 4/02/2009
> 4:35 PM
>
>
>
>