EBVT Offsets (compilation)

[Ed Sutton]

Ron-
Not really! But your temperament on that Hamilton in Chicago really seemed
to reduce the dissonance in a piano that usually hurts to listen to.
Ed Sutton (the other Ed)

----------
>From: "Ron Koval" <drwoodwind@hotmail.com>
>To: caut@ptg.org
>Subject: EBVT Offsets (compilation)
>Date: Fri, Oct 4, 2002, 8:38 PM
>

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives