Also, the February 2009 issue of the PTG Journal devotes the entire "Letters to the Editor" section to a letter from Virgil, on this precise subject. As a relative newcomer to the PTG, I find this approach fascinating, though mysterious. I have not yet discovered a method to make the leap from tuning by partials, to tuning by 'natural beats.' I guess I will keep tuning, and prodding around the outside the shell of this conundrum until I make some sort of breakthrough. Jim On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Jim Moy <jim at moypiano.com> wrote: > I happen to have read recently, and have in front of me, a copy of > Virgil Smith's "New Techniques For Superior Aural Tuning," 2nd Ed. > (Available at the PTG store, BTW) Thought it might be useful to have > a few excerpts: > > Ch.1 > > "...it is not necessary to hear the pitch of single matching partials > to hear beats for aural tuning, because of the ability of the ear to > combine all the partials of a note into one pitch. > ... > "When an interval is expanded or contracted to produce beats, the ear > (when listening to the two notes normally) combines all the partials > of both notes into two single pitches, just like it does with one note > alone. In addition, it combines all the beats between the partials > into one beat. The beat then comes from all the partials instead of > one set of partials. > ... > "This beat can be tuned to the desired speed or eliminated completely. > This means that beats can be heard two different ways: between single > matching partials, and between notes as the ear hears them naturally > with all the partials of each note sounding. > ... > "For clarity, one will be referred to as 'partial beats,' and the > other as 'natural beats.' It is important that every tuner clearly > understand this, for failure to understand this has lead to much > confusion in the past. ... The finest quality aural tuning can be > accomplished by dealing only with natural beats. > ... > "In some cases, the beat at the single matching partial level is > different when all the partials are contributing to the one beat." > > I hope I have not mis-represented Virgil's intent, by not quoting in > its entirety. I am still striving to grok in fullness what I have > read in his book. I experience what he is describing when I play and > listen. But when I go to put it in practice tuning, I still feel as > if I am encountering a Zen puzzle of sorts. > > Jim Moy > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote: >> Hi William and others. >> >> Nice stuff... sorry bout the rest.... seems to never go away.. but let go. >> I have to agree with the below... I like to think in terms of coincident >> partials when trying to describe things tuning wise... phrases like beatless >> octave and aurally perfect octaves require me to think out of my own >> box...which I can do... but its clear that a lot of confusion gets stirred >> up as too many start mixing vocabularies. >> >> So what do we call what Virgil refers to as the beatless octave and now >> surfaces anew in the term aurally pure ? Can we put a name on it... or do we >> have to use phrases like you touch on below ? >> >> Cheers >> RicB >> >> >> No problem with any of this. I agree wholeheartedly. And, as long >> as you continue to phrase things such: "sense of beatlessness", or, >> "perceived beatlessness," I could accept it. But I think it would >> be better phrased with regards to cleanliness than beat speeds, e.g. >> trying to tune an octave or dbl octave so that the combination of >> coincident partials sound "as clean as possible." >> >> >> >> >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC