er? Did you read the whole of my reply above? I haven't added anything myself, the only two instances where I directly referred to the definition of harmonics was a quote (from Wikipedia as you have noted) and another phrase which was a paraphrasing from another reference book about acoustical pianos (but which is also in a form or another on Wikipedia too). When I wrote ''arbitrary'' I was simply answering this: ''This is a harmonic. What is described in above quote is called sympathetic resonance, it's not just a harmonic.''
Notice the subjectivity (that's what I called arbitrary, ''that's what is an harmonic'', something which doesn't apply to a real piano to begin with), ''it's not just harmonics'' (it is or it isn't just harmonics, call it a phenomenon of harmonics, those are constructs of language they do not substitute to reality) and there is a wave function (with the sound) of a harmonic being posted. Notice my reply: ''you are being (in my opinion) too much selective with your definition of the harmonics. Reason is that (as you know) the whole design of a piano is made so that the instrument produce nearly (not completely) periodic oscillations; overtones as close as possible to the harmonics of the fundamental.''
My point above was that while it's true that what he has posted is a harmonic, in a true acoustical piano nearly periodic oscillations (NOT completely) are produced... (and I haven't even started with the consequences of this on other strings) one can find a piano tuner easily on YouTube explaining this and why it is so. It's not as if I am saying something new here. The mathematical pure harmonic he posted isn't actually what exactly happens on a true acoustical piano.
To this adds the fact that when someone gives an opinion, he is inherently limited to his own knowledge and to get his whole point one has to be able to put himself in that person's shoes. Gotacki opinion for instance certainly didn't refer only to harmonics... in a real piano (like guitars and other instruments), not only harmonics are being created... in this wholeness of the sound (the WOW effect I was referring to) what aspect comes from harmonics, directly or more particularly indirectly relies on constructs and set parameters limited by the abstraction of language. If you are disagreeing here, this too doesn't come from me, my little Geek friend (see I'm innocent here, it's his point of view and he can't express himself, so I guess he's excused too ) is referring to the very same author you have quoted, Kant, in several passages you could find in his critic of pure reason (and the paradox of Kant as direct consequence) what I pointed out is explained precisely. By restraining ourselves to some rational (digital) slicing of reality with abstract notions we certainly miss the boat. What Gotacki wrote was actually quite simple: ''When I press silently a note on my piano (a real one), lets say a C4 and I strike (rather hard :-)) a note one octave lower (here a C3). I hear an harmonic rather loud. '' How much of what he wrote in essence change if the word harmonic was misused? There is something which is missing in that sound, and the only persons who will wholly understand him are those who also felt something is missing. What harmonics are, or what they aren't is just secondary here.
Remembers me the tree of knowledge (what is right and what is wrong)... what is knowledge is inherently constructed on what is right (call it Good) and what is wrong (Evil)... since those are mostly relying on constructs and social norms and biases (models), they are arbitrary and are therefore sentenced to be replaced (die)... but what remains is this: ''When I press silently a note on my piano (a real one), lets say a C4 and I strike (rather hard :-)) a note one octave lower (here a C3). I hear an WWWOOOWWW rather loud.'' Call that the tree of life, not sentenced to be replaced. :b
Last edited by Lucy (02-04-2017 05:55)