[CAUT] Shulze tuning research

[Fred Sturm]

On Oct 24, 2008, at 9:34 AM, A440A at aol.com wrote:

>    Perhaps, but I wonder why it matters.  I submit that after all  
> the tuning
> on these pianos, a fourth piano tuned in a Coleman 11 tuning,  
> straight out of
> a machine, (any of them), will blow these pianos off the stage.
> ET can be dressed up any way possible, but in direct A-B  
> comparisons, I have
> yet to see it remotely competitive with a mild WT for the majority  
> of li
> steners.  All the refinement in the world doesn't change the ear- 
> deadening effect of
> having all intervals the same.
>     I have a standing offer to anyone that suggests ET is the  
> preferred
> tuning:  give it your best shot and put it alongside Jim Coleman's  
> temperament for
> an audience to listen to and vote.  The angels will dance on the  
> pin, but the
> difference is profound.


	I remain somewhat agnostic on the WT/ET question. But that is a  
separate issue from the question of degree of stretch. Granted that  
the discussion of 3:1, 6:1 and whatnot has assumed an ET, it certainly  
doesn't have to. The stretch principles can be used to create the  
"basic tuning" (the math is simpler for ET, assuming the use of  
computers and EDTs), and then offsets used to modify, quite  
successfully, to whatever flavor you desire. The modifications for a  
WT do not, in fact, change the overall sound of open 1:3:4:6:8 very  
significantly to my ear. They do obviously affect 5. If we get as far  
into WT as Valotti, I would modify my statement a bit, but with  
something on the order of Coleman 11, I think it holds.
	I think that some research along the lines of "appropriate stretch"  
would be very useful and enlightening. It's something most people  
skirt around, mumbling things about "matching the piano" but failing  
to say how.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu