[jaddie]

Quote:

 
You can't tune using beats without a reference pitch by definition.

Actually, once you're past A4 you can, do and must tune without referencing fundamentals alone. Tuning by listening to beats of partials has nothing to do with what reference you choose, it could be anything.  The beats you are tuning and counting are beats between parietals, not beats between fundamentals, as the intervals you are comparing would result in fundamental beat frequencies far to high to count.  Trying to tune each note individually to a reference will result in a horribly mis-tuned instrument.  
 
The reference is used only as a starting point, and possibly for the home octave.  In the case of a neglected instrument, you'd ignore the true 440 reference and tune the entire thing deliberately flat, leave it for a few weeks, then tune it all up a little at a time until you get where you want to be, and have broken all the strings you're going to break and replaced them. 

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
uchihaitachi is incorrect to use piano tuners as an example of people who have extremely precise absolute pitch, which has been the argument for some time now. 

I think you should learn to stop dismissing vital information when debating. I have repeated several times that the reference pitch need not be provided so yes using piano tuners as an example is perfectly valid. Several piano tuners I know don't use a tuning fork or a digital source as a provision for the reference pitch, they start it off by ear and can tune for different pitch as the pianist requests. I also provided examples of several VERY imminent musicians who are capable of such ie Heifetz, who you seem to not know and brush off as arcane anecdotal evidence. Watch pianomania if you want video evidence for absolute pitch tuners work without reference and tune the initial note for 1c 2c preferences. 

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
Because that isn't a description of what pitch is. It just so happens that with certain instruments, like stringed instruments, the harmonic content, e.g. the timbre, will change with pitch.
 
It's like I'm talking to a wall... what a waste of time.

Explain to me how this is relevant in any shape or form. You are wasting the time here. Read what you wrote and see if it isn't strongly misleading.
 
I was also explaining to you earlier about people hearing missing fundamentals. I thought we were talking about hearing pitch with instruments. Why should sine waves come into this..... 
 
You think people can't tell 1c 2c differences. I think and have seen multiple times that they can. As I said earlier lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Actually, once you're past A4 you can, do and must tune without referencing fundamentals alone.

 
Did I say anything about referencing fundamentals alone?
All that matters is that you are still using the fundamental as a reference for the pitch. Once you do that, you aren't using absolute pitch.
 
Quote:

Tuning by listening to beats of partials has nothing to do with what reference you choose, it could be anything.  The beats you are tuning and counting are beats between parietals, not beats between fundamentals, as the intervals you are comparing would result in fundamental beat frequencies far to high to count.  Trying to tune each note individually to a reference will result in a horribly mis-tuned instrument.  
 
The reference is used only as a starting point, and possibly for the home octave.  In the case of a neglected instrument, you'd ignore the true 440 reference and tune the entire thing deliberately flat, leave it for a few weeks, then tune it all up a little at a time until you get where you want to be, and have broken all the strings you're going to break and replaced them.

 
And tuning with partials has nothing to do with "tuning" in the sense of tuning pitch. "tuning partials" is about adjusting timbre (harmonic content), which I've said OVER AND OVER is why slight fine tuning is done.
 
You think you are disagreeing with me, but you aren't.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

I think you should learn to stop dismissing vital information when debating. I have repeated several times that the reference pitch need not be provided so yes using piano tuners as an example is perfectly valid. Several piano tuners I know don't use a tuning fork or a digital source as a provision for the reference pitch, they start it off by ear and can tune for different pitch as the pianist requests. I also provided examples of several VERY imminent musicians who are capable of such ie Heifetz, who you seem to not know and brush off as arcane anecdotal evidence. Watch pianomania if you want video evidence for absolute pitch tuners work without reference and tune the initial note for 1c 2c preferences. 

 
I dismiss "vital information" when it comes from your personal anecdotes. Even if you have seen all these big name musicians, I'm not really convinced you would even know how they can tell a 1c pitch difference (which again, this article itself says is not possible for absolute pitch). I've actually watched pianomania and saw no such thing. As jaddie has been pointing out, piano tuners don't even seek precise tuning, they listen to partials e.g. harmonic content subjectively. These are timbre adjustments. Do you even know what absolute pitch is? Do you know what tuning with beats is? Do you understand why they aren't the same thing?

 

[uchihaitachi]

Quote:

 
I dismiss "vital information" when it comes from your personal anecdotes.  I've actually watched pianomania and saw no such thing. As jaddie has been pointing out, piano tuners don't even seek precise tuning, they listen to partials e.g. harmonic content subjectively. These are timbre adjustments. Do you even know what absolute pitch is? Do you know what tuning with beats is? Do you understand why they aren't the same thing?

Jascha Heifetz's ability to discern pitch is legendary. You can't just dismiss it as my personal anecdote. But you don't even know him so I guess we can pass on that.
I never even mentioned once, tuning with beats. Not once. Again, please read carefully.
I have absolute pitch so I would know. 
I would agree with you that most individuals might not be able to tell 1c 2c when it comes to sine waves. But I thought we were talking in an instruments related context? 

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Explain to me how this is relevant in any shape or form. You are wasting the time here. Read what you wrote and see if it isn't strongly misleading.

 
How what is relevant? You have conflated the notion that pitch can change timbre for string instruments, with pitch being described by timbre. They aren't the same thing.
 
Quote:

I was also explaining to you earlier about people hearing missing fundamentals. I thought we were talking about hearing pitch with instruments. Why should sine waves come into this..... 
 
You think people can't tell 1c 2c differences. I think and have seen multiple times that they can. As I said earlier lets just agree to disagree.

 
Why should sine waves come into this? Because they produce pure frequencies, and anyone who can hear a 1c difference would be able to hear the difference using sine waves.

 

[jaddie]

Quote:

 
I don't doubt there are many piano tuners who have incredible absolute pitch. But I seriously doubt they can hear 1c differences, which is what you claimed. I saw nothing in pianomania like this. Why would they even do this when they can actually play a reference note? It makes no sense.

Agreed, there would be precious few, though it's not a huge issue because any group of musicians will re-tune to the non-tunable instrument.
Quote:

 
No, you can hear a sine wave, despite it not having any harmonic content other than the fundamental frequency.

Correct.
Quote:

Because that isn't a description of what pitch is. It just so happens that with certain instruments, like stringed instruments, the harmonic content, e.g. the timbre, will change with pitch.

Also correct. Changes in timbe are inseparably linked to changes in pitch in most (not all) instruments, though pitch and timbre are entirely separate parameters. This is why sampling just one octave of an acoustic instrument and pitch-bending it all over the place on a synthesizer doesn't work well (ok, at all).  
 
Ain't it fun to reply while the other guy is re-editing his post?

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Jascha Heifetz's ability to discern pitch is legendary. You can't just dismiss it as my personal anecdote. But you don't even know him so I guess we can pass on that.
I never even mentioned once, tuning with beats. Not once. Again, please read carefully.
I have absolute pitch so I would know. 
I would agree with you that most individuals might not be able to tell 1c 2c when it comes to sine waves. But I thought we were talking in an instruments related context? 

 
Jascha Heifetz probably does have amazing perfect pitch. How does that prove he can hear a 1c difference? You are incorrectly interpolating adjectives to mean specific quantities.
You didn't mention tuning with beats because you had no idea how actual piano tuners work.
 
 
 
Quote:

I have absolute pitch so I would know.

 
So you've told me.
 
 
Quote:

I would agree with you that most individuals might not be able to tell 1c 2c when it comes to sine waves. But I thought we were talking in an instruments related context?

 
Absolute pitch has nothing to do with harmonic content. Any good study you find about absolute pitch will be performed using sine waves or some other consistent synthesized wave form.

 

[jaddie]

Wanna have some fun?
 
http://tonometric.com
 
Try the Adaptive Pitch test.  
 
I could reliable differentiate .9hz at 500Hz and scored 83 on the Tone Deaf test.

 

[uchihaitachi]

 
 
Randomised tests from the link I provided you above. As you dismiss everything I say as anecdotal evidence. I can't tell 1c apart but I know my pitch sensitivity isn't very good.

 

[jaddie]

And tuning with partials has nothing to do with "tuning" in the sense of tuning pitch. "tuning partials" is about adjusting timbre (harmonic content), which I've said OVER AND OVER is why slight fine tuning is done.

You think you are disagreeing with me, but you aren't.

I will exactly disagree with you on the above. It's Not about simply tuning for timbre, it Is about tuning for pitch, at least with a piano.

See? We do disagree!

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Randomised tests from the link I provided you above. As you dismiss everything I say as anecdotal evidence. I can't tell 1c apart but I know my pitch sensitivity isn't very good.

 
I'll just go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt regarding whether or not you're not using a digital tuner (which would be extremely easy to do).
That still isn't absolute pitch because you are listening to pitches in relation to each other and are given a priori what the notes are and how they are tuned. If you could use perfect pitch to hear 440 from 441, that means that I could play you just 441 Hz and you could tell me "Oh that is A that is 4 cents sharp".
 
This was your original claim:
 
Quote:

Several professional musicians I have encountered can hear that an A is tuned at 441 or 440 etc

 
 
And I remind you again, that the article that this entire thread pertains to, says that is not possible (at least not reliably).
"The subjects then perceived the flattened music as in tune, while the in-tune notes were perceived as slightly sharp"

 

[uchihaitachi]

This issue makes me question, is it easier to differentiate minute pitch differences with extra harmonic content present? Or does the extra content serve as a detriment in judging pitch?

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

I will exactly disagree with you on the above. It's Not about simply tuning for timbre, it Is about tuning for pitch, at least with a piano.

 
The partials have the same frequency as the fundamental times a whole number, so that doesn't make sense.