Funny you should mention that David. Kent claims "magic" several places all over his article.... what was that quote from Arthur C. Clark..... ? I make the opposite point. This aint magic, and if you stop and think about the consequences of not compensating for individual instrument inharmonicity you will quickly see that that claim cant hold water either. In fact Kent quotes Stopper saying exactly that. This is no doubt a fine piece of softeware... but lets not try and pass it off for something it isnt. "Magic" doesnt do Stopper justice at all. He spent a lot of hard work and long hours working all this out... with maths mind you... so it all does make perfect... and quite rational sense. Cheers RicB Well it must be magic... David Ilvedson, RPT Pacifica, CA 94044 >From RicB: "...You can quite easily accomplish a P-12ths tuning ..." Let's follow the <thin> clues we have so far. 1. Stopper has stated that his tuning is NOT a P-12ths tuning. 2. I've experimented with P-12ths tunings, they don't seem appropriate for many types of pianos. 3. Kent stated that he's tried the OnlyPure on many types of pianos and the tuning "worked" for all of them. 4. Stopper's definition of "pure" is not the same as the traditional tuner's nomenclature of a partial match. (something about where the sum of beats of all relevant partial matches of octave and octave-fifth are at a minimum...) So where does that lead? Not to a simple Tunelab curve. It's an interesting puzzle. Especially since Stopper seems to discount inharmonicity - the software seems to work without any measurements from the piano to customize the tuning. Ron Koval Concordia University
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC