---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment In a message dated 9/9/02 1:55:27 PM Central Daylight Time, drwoodwind@hotmail.com writes: > So, I think the terminology of equal beating has caused some confusion. > Those of us "number crunchers" took the term very literally. Equal means > equal. This has been the difficulty making the numbers work for the EBVT. > If we are now to accept that for the purposes of creating the temperament, > 16 equals (or is close enough to) 17.5, there is a much wider range into > which this temperament may fit. > Thanks for your reasonable reply, Ron. I am actively working on the solution for correction figures and will have it soon. What Ed did was take to figures from different posts, throw them out there and say, so to speak, "there, I told you so, it's FULL of imbalances which no other temperament in history ever had, a "Sideways Well", blah blah blah". It's just another example of where he has never at anytime supported what I do while I have supported him many times. I can remember the very first time I met the guy, who I didn't even know or know of and there he was giving me the evil eye. The truth is that some very minor errors can accumulate to create an imbalance in any temperament with close tolerances. This happens in ET, of course. One little error of even 1 cent and it's off. Make that error and keep on tuning off of it and make it again a few times and you've got something far akin from what you intended. In ET, you are trying to temper 5ths ever so slightly. It is so easy to make one pure and have it sound good by itself but have the wrong effect on the temperament as a whole. Tuning pure 5ths can involve the same errors whether by perception or instability. Tuning intervals to beat equally has the same hazards. I never claimed to be perfect but a high degree of precision has always been my goal. It has to be. Many of the truly Historical Temperaments are so far askew from ET that small errors like these have little effect on the outcome. Your excellent graphs (of which no one else ever had quite the same idea) showed this. But when you get down to these very mild temperaments, small errors and even scaling irregularities can be confounding. The interval size I measured that day I wrote that post of E3-G#3 at 17.5 and F#3-A#3 at 16 sure did sound to me like they were beating the same. And even if they weren't really exactly the same as could be measured scientifically, did this really matter that much? Was it enough to discredit someone's work of an entire decade? Did it *ruin* the music? I hardly think so. I did, in fact, discuss this problem with Owen Jorgensen back in 1992. From my very preliminary and raw data at the time, he noted a slight imbalance but *dismissed* it as insignificant. However, I am not satisfied with that. I think the basic scheme can exist and have no imbalances at all. Those 2 intervals, E-G# and F#-A# are not specified in my temperament scheme as being Equal Beating. The only ones which are specified are F3-A3, G3-B3, G3-E4 and C4-E4. I have, however, on many occasions, noted many more intervals which often fell into and Equal Beating pattern. If B2-D#3, Db3-F3, E3-G#3 & F#3-A#3 all end up beating the same or at least, very similarly, it would not break Werkmeister's rules. But I must emphasize again, the EBVT was never conceived as a Well-Tempered Tuning but instead, a Modified Meantone, where those rules don't exactly apply. It was another of my Chapter members (who resigned from PTG some years ago to escape the ire of the ET only crowd) who first did what Owen Jorgensen called, "using a Modified Meantone Temperament as a *substitute* for Well Tempered Tuning". He was *thrilled* with the whole concept. So what Ed has done, always done and continues to do, is to try to discredit work which goes far beyond his and his understanding. I've had enough of it and won't tolerate it. I'll leave this screen name and moniker on until and unless he recants his post of false and defamatory information. I really don't care who reads my posts or who does not. I don't expect everyone to be interested, never did. But I see very little if any real contributions from those who write some of the negative things. Hardly ever more than a couple of sentences and usually with spelling and grammar errors. They discredit themselves with every single post they write. It seems to me that they feel they already know everything there is to know and don't want to read or hear of anything they haven't already learned. I couldn't care less what they say. My website has seen ever increasing traffic and I have received ever increasing inquiries from both technicians and piano customers because of my work. I get plenty of local calls from people who have heard about what I do. My calendar is completely full without any room for another appointment for 6 weeks. And Ed says I'm "insecure"? B.S. I'm confident in what I do and will not be intimidated by his or anyone else's taunting. I can and would be happy to demonstrate what I do to any group who wants me to but I'll only do it on my own terms. I'll not fall into the Uncle Tom trap that he has. I'm never going to go around tuning the EBVT by using correction figures but I do understand nevertheless, the importance of coming up with them. This will come about as soon as I am sure of them and I hope you'll try them out. >From what I can see so far, however, both the FAC program and any correction figures applied to them will yield slightly different results from piano to piano. In the past, Ed has dismissed this by saying, "Oh sure, if you tune JUNK". My interpretation of what he says is that he thinks most piano technicians tune JUNK, only he does not. Dr. Sanderson never claimed the FAC program to be infallible. I can assure anyone who takes Ed Foote's recommendation of using those whole number correction figures for the so-called, "Best Broadwood" temperament that the results will vary from piano to piano and can in no way be considered to have any of the effects or properties of the EBVT. It will just be a wishy-washy temperament with unequal 3rds and uneven 5ths, the kind that some have called a "sloppy equal". Thanks for your time. "Sideways Well": the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/92/71/70/61/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC