More EBVT Data

SidewaysWell1713@aol.com SidewaysWell1713@aol.com
Sun, 15 Sep 2002 19:41:53 EDT


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 9/15/02 3:25:18 PM Central Daylight Time, 
jkanter@rollingball.com writes:


> 
> >> My conclusion here is not that this is a flawed temperament, but that the 
>> bearing instructions are probably inaccurate (because the theory produces 
>> a more imbalanced tuning than the actuals, which Bill has also published 
>> twice now) ; and I suspect that the FAC reading of offsets on 9/1 is also 
>> probably slightly inaccurate (because they calculate out to several 
>> significant differences in interval size than he measured). I suspect that 
>> when Bill tunes a "pure" fifth he is actually tuning something slightly 
>> contracted (and the BbF slightly expanded). I suspect that the tuning 
>> tends to sound good because the M3s on C, G, D, and F are all sweeter than 
>> ET, and that when he tunes the rest of the piano he compensates, adjusts, 
>> fixes to reduce the imbalances, and that his method of tuning octaves is 
>> probably so sweet that it alone makes the piano sing. 
>> 
> 

Thanks for taking the time, Jason.  I think I see what I have seen before in 
electronic analysis attempts.  I have, long ago before I ever wrote on 
Pianotech used my SAT to measure and tune intervals to specific values, such 
as the pure 5ths and a C4-E4 3rd at 6.5 cents, 7.0 cents or 7.5 cents as I 
determined would be appropriate for the amount of inharmonicity the piano has.

I knew with all certainty *exactly* what the intervals were and sent the 
figures for how they are represented in a program with the 3rd, 4th and 5th 
octaves all reading on octave 5 to a colleague who uses Ed Foote's method for 
everything.  The reports I got back were that the C4-E4 was much wider than I 
had ever tuned it and that the 4ths & 5ths were not pure but tempered, also 
the question of imbalances, etc.  I wondered, and still do, how the person 
who was making these analyses ever came up with those results.

I am seeing the same thing here again and what I suspect is that there is a 
combination of theoretical analysis used to interpret actual figures which 
reflect the presence of inharmonicity.  The 5ths in my temperament are pure 
as they are heard using the lower set of coincident partials (not the higher 
set).  In my latest reading, the Bb3-F4 5th shows it to be slightly but 
inaudibly widened which is acceptable.  Higher up the scale, it is 
deliberately allowed to be slightly (and audibly) wide.  It gives both the 
keys of F and Bb Major a sweet and pleasing sound.

Some years ago, I sent Ed Foote a chart of the actual reading of a tuning I 
had done at the Convention on a Yamaha C7.  I'm not sure whether he ever 
tuned a piano according to the chart or not but his immediate answer was to 
start manipulating it electronically and a claim that there was far more 
stretch than would be allowed in Nashville recording studios.

When I tune the piano either entirely by ear or by Direct Interval assist, I 
do not get the kind of imbalances Ed Foote has chosen to try to assassinate 
and discredit me with.  It would be possible to get an E3-G#3 too wide, yes, 
but only by careless error, which is not my nature at all.  Those wider 3rds 
all either beat in proportion to where they should within the cycle of 5ths 
and often there are sets of equal beating intervals which occur but are not 
specified or required in the bearing plan.

What I can tell you is this:  Owen Jorgensen and I corresponded quite 
frequently back in the late 1980's and early 1990's before I had a computer.  
I sent him bearing plans and he commented on them.  When I presented the 
early ideas on the EBVT (which have never really changed substantially), he 
approved of the label, "Victorian" and of the harmonic balance it had, 
including that of the minor 3rds.

Ed Foote says he tuned it "electronically" but with what figures since none 
have really been confirmed?  He also says he tuned it aurally but can we be 
certain of the infallibility of his aural tuning, especially since he rarely 
if ever, tunes that way?

And please don't think that I stretch my octaves +75 cents.  I never said I 
did and have stated many times that when I have made the decision to put the 
very highest amount of justifiable stretch, the very last note, C8 will end 
up in that range.  Just play the note C4 and read it on C8 and you'll see.  
None of the notes leading up to C8 are quite that high but they do take a 
geometric leap in the last part of the 7th octave, as they do proportionately 
with whatever amount of stretch is used.

I see that Ed Foote wants to continue to try to discredit what I do at all 
costs.  He has always done this.  He wants to promote the tune by numbers 
method using numbers copied out of books and feels threatened when someone 
else uses different methods with consistently positive and successful 
results.  Yes, he can use his method and produce good sounding tunings, 
demonstrate them in classes and put them on recordings but so can I.

I listen carefully to the piano and make each decision about how to 
compromise the scale according to what the piano actually produces, not what 
I think or don't think the numeric analysis should be.  That's where the art 
in tuning is and if you ask me, the amount of art found in copying numbers 
and accepting someone else's calculation is severely limited when compared to 
that of a piano tuning constructed interval by interval and according to an 
understanding of what freedom there is and what limitations there are based 
on 33 years of aural tuning experience which was certified by PTG to be at 
the highest recognized level 20 years ago.  I have only built upon, increased 
my knowledge and skill in the 20 years since and will continue to do so.

The thing that so deeply disturbs Ed Foote is that he knows that mine tuning 
sound *better* than his.

"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/ff/7b/ac/e5/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC