Ron and all- The confusion has come from an aural tuner trying to translate into numbers what he has been doing. Having a machine, but scorning it at the same time wasn't very helpful. It seems that his written directions were not exactly clear either...... But, looking at the present numbers seems to indicate he's got it this time. The ratio of M3 to m3 in most chords works out to a 1:2 or a 2:3 beating ratio. Rare, for a "small" temperament. Paul Bailey's "full-strength" temperament was constructed with this in mind. In case it is never said anywhere else, this has been a group effort with many people prodding and helping to get this translated into a usable form. I think there's probably a better way to write the aural directions, once this has been put on a spreadsheet, and all the beat rates displayed clearly. Help any? Ron Koval (the other Ron) >Something has been bothering me about this shifting offset thing being >related to inharmonicity. Aren't the offsets relating to an ET tuning that >was either calculated, or constructed, with inharmonicity already factored >in for that individual piano? If that's the case, why wouldn't the offsets >from the adjusted ET be pretty close to where it belongs from piano to >piano? I don't think I understand. > >Ron N _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC