ramblin' (tuning by pure 5ths)

[Richard Moody]

I was thinking of trying to lower the A4 by as much as it takes to
get a pure fifth.  However this assumes one is tuning from an
established ET octave.   
	I have no  problem tuning tempered octaves, but tuning pure fifths
is, well very  unusual. It is not the same as tuning pure octaves, at
least so it seems in these early stages.  Perhaps it is because diff
and more remote partials are involved. 
	I am impressed by hearing pure fifths in music (from a keyboard) I
had grown up hearing tempered and then tuned ET for. I think though
in
this second attempt I came out (was forced to smaller octaves, out of
ingrained habit)  that I really ended up with tempered fifths, but
much purer than I have ever known.  Maybe one has to evolve into
this. I think what will happen to aural tuners is that on successive
attempts we will get bolder with wider octaves. Or perhaps become
like the early tuners and stick the wolf where the sun don't shine. :
). 
	It is also easy to make errors. Like when I tuned a' to d' pure
thinking that tuning the next fourth down,   d' to a, I would get a
stretched octave, and then wonder why I didn't.  Like duh.  While we
are on that subject, I wonder why the notation I used above isn't in
more general use?    Isn't that what organists and harpsichordists
use?  Why let the compass of the keyboard dictate nomenclature? And
why start at the bottom note even? Every keyboard has a middle C why
not start there?   Besides its so simple.  Middle C is   c'    the C
above
is    c"     the C below MC is    c     the C below that is      C   
   which is,, hold on
I gotta look it up,, is C2.   Anyhow Groves should be definitive on
this so some one with more immediate access correct me if wrong. Even
c''' (C5) is no problem is ASCII.   Also tell me if my guess is right
that C1 would be C' . 
	If you ask me,  I think it would be more logical to have the octave
below middle C in caps and the octave above in smalls, and then the 
primes, but logic and music when not a conendrum, (hmm can't spell
that, how bout "conidium"), is on a very esoteric level.
Maybe I'll put Jim's tuning procedure in the "traditional"? 
nomenclature
to see if it is really easier.  But some one with Groves please make
sure I have this right, or AGO at least. : ) 

Ricahrd Moody 

----------
> From: Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
> To: Frank Weston <waco@ari.net>
> Cc: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: ramblin' (tuning by pure 5ths)
> Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 11:50 PM
> 
> 
> As I had promised others earlier, I am now sending a tuning system
for
> aurally tuning a temperament which I have proven out myself aurally
> independently and in comparison with the stretched Sat tuning used
> previously.


snip....



> 
> Jim Coleman, Sr.
> 
> PS I would sure like to hear back from the brave sould who actually
try
> this. But be sure to play some music on it before you tell me how
much
> you do not like the single octaves. JWC


Rac. C#minor, Apashionsonata :), Pathetique, The funeral
dirge,(Chopin
Prelude).  Actually with out octaves and chords how do you notice it?