On Jan 31, 2009, at 8:27 AM, rwest1 at unl.edu wrote: > Perhaps what I'm saying is that given the research that's out there, > and my inclination to trust my ears more than a set of numbers, I > tend to favor aural descriptions of interval sizes rather than ETD > numbers. Does trying to duplicate a historical temperament by using > contemporary methods automatically disqualify the result? If so ETD > numbers are suspect as well as using beats. The practical business > of tuning a temperament comes down to what method you prefer to > achieve a sound that may only truly exist in history. I am not arguing against that approach. I am merely pointing out that the aural beat rate tables are not essentially either more or less precise than cents offset tables in reproducing historical temperaments. Neither is more authentic than the other. If you want to be "more authentic," you need to go to the source and tune by the methods used at the time, which did not involve counting beats. It did involve aural methods, but they were somewhat different in what you listen for. The beat counting method of tuning is mostly a 20th century procedure (though it was developed in the 19th century, and beat rates for ET were published in the 18th century). Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico fssturm at unm.edu
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC