SNIP I also think that the repetition of the phrase "beatless octave" is a > disservice to tuning--there is no such thing, and its use by some as > descriptive of a phenomenon is as confusing as saying "false beats" when in > reality they are real. :-) > > Paul > I have to agree with Paul here. No matter how you phrase it or conceptualize it, there is no such thing. You can say "apparent beatlessness" or "pure sounding" or indeed that the existing beating that is indeed there is "so very easy to ignore... not even notice" or any other of endless phrasings till the cows come home. The point I would make is that these statements can all be looked at in the converse (inverse?, reverse?) and all one needs to do is listen and you instantly know that the beating exists. No matter where you place your octave, it beats. I think I get your intention, Ric, in suggesting that there exists a "particular location" where the octave is just as clean sounding and round and lovely as it can be. I simply object to referring to it as a "beatless octave" unless you further define it by its coincident partials. If you choose not to listen to any particular partial alignment, that's fine, but it still exists. I don't know how I'd redefine this octave type/spacing, but I just don't think "beatless octave" is technically accurate or usefully descriptive. Maybe I'm just aging quickly. |;-] William R. Monroe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090308/5d335686/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC