Ok... so there was a big mistake in this.... actually I have been tuning by taking the 3rd of D3 and A4 and useing those offsets to set that octave 5th, and then repeating the process for the 3rd of A4 and E6. I assumed that this was going to be the same as just taking the offsets for D3 and E6 and setting the whole area at once... but nooooooo no no no... What essentially is happening is that in an octave 5th Tune Lab figures the exact relationship between the two notes... (something in excess of 3 to 1 ) and then takes the 19th root of that quotient. Then starting with the lowest note in the range it just multiplies that result times the each successive frequency to give you the offsets. But if you do this from E6 to D3 which then is like the 38th root of a roughly 9 to 1 relationship then you end up with a totally different picture. For example A4's 3rd changes from about 5 cents offset to about 14 cents. Of course this makes for a pretty wild tuning...grin... so you have to take each section for itself. What I am not clear on here is why there is such a big difference here... I mean spliting an octave into 12 evenly spaced segments or spliting 3 octaves into evenly spaced turns out not to be the same... like the distance between intervals then simply has to fit into an exponetial curve........ok... so we sort of already know this... but..... so why do we use a linear equation to define the ET temperament ?? as in Cents ?? If I tune an octave (with any given partial) slavically with this linear way of dividing up any given actual octave... then what the heck does that do to all the other partial relationships....they want to increase exponetially ... beat rates are going to get out of wack this way or what ???.. Grin... maybe I am thinking too much. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC