More EBVT Data

[Alan R. Barnard]

Someone has to stop this.

Ed, my friend, let BB have the last word (it will be ignored by one and
all). Just don't respond to ANYTHING he posts.

I'm guessing that most readers here are more or less like me anyway, i.e.,
not interested in the topic and don't have the background to even follow the
discussion, much less make any judgements about who is right or who is
wrong.

This has become nothing more than a slanderous, sophistic and sophomoric
shouting session (great words, eh? AND alliterative!)

No one EVER changed another person's opinion or converted him to a new
belief by arguing. Can't happen, never has. For the sake of all of us,
please, take the pledge--facts, not ego, and nothing personal--AND DROP IT!

And PLEASE, for Heaven's sake, don't think I have taken "sides."

Alan Barnard

----- Original Message -----
From: <A440A@aol.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: More EBVT Data


> Mr Bremmer writes:
> >I believe I've made my point about Ed Foote's motivations for writing
what
> >he  did, so for the moment, I'll drop the moniker.
>
>      I would take issue that you have made any points at all,  just
spurious
> and inaccurate comments in a desperate attempt to avoid the error of your
> website.  If you would take the time to actually read what was posted, you
> would notice that I wrote:
> > as In spite of the author's claim to have created "a new temperament
which
> retains the true "colors" or >tonality known in the past", the EBVT, as
> described, cannot do that,<snip>
>
>    I stand behind that. What part of "as described" is so hard to
understand?
>    All of your ranting will not change how  the temperament is described
on
> the site, which is all I have addressed;  not how you tune, what you tune,
> your love life, or anything else.
>
> >I'm going to warn Ed Foote right here and now not to start saying
anything
> >about this at all, such as "inconsistency" or anything else.
>
>     Your warnings carry no weight with me, so let me be very clear.  Your
> numbers are wrong, your procedure is malleable,  and your results are so
> subjective that they defy utility.  The imbalances are there,  but I will
> leave it to the number crunchers to specify exactly what and where,  I
make
> my judgements by listening to aural and electronic results and comparing
the
> differences.
>
> >While using the correction figures method is valid to a point, it doesn't
> >allow the tuner to really know what is being done unless that person goes
> >through the tuning and aurally verifies it.  Dr. Sanderson will be the
> >first to tell you this.  It only gets you close, it is a calculated
> approximation.
>
>    Which is exactly why I posted long ago that the Jorgensen book's aural
> bearing plans should be used to verify the results of using the machine
> offsets, but that is a detail Mr. Bremmer managed to overlook.  All tuning
is
> a calculated approximation, regardless of how one goes about it, but on
> well-scaled pianos, the differences between the offsets and following the
> aural instructions are academic.
>
> > If Ed Foote wants to continue to play his insult, defamation and
> discrediting game, I have bigger and better >ammunition than he does.
>
>    This is not a game.  Among other things, you have repeatedly posted
that I
> have called certain manufacturers specific products junk, which is totally
> false, and is, imo, an attempt to damage my professional relationships
within
> the industry.  You don't think I am going to sit idly by while this
happens,
> do you?  You have responded to a critique of your creation with personal
> attacks, and insinuations of incompetance, which violates every ethical
> standard of debate.   Everything posted so far on this subject is a matter
of
> public record, and the decision on how your behaviour reflects upon the
Guild
> as a whole is soon to be out of my hands.
> Ed Foote RPT
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives