ramblin' (tuning by pure 5ths)

[Jim]

Hi Richard:

Did you get my latest pure5ths temperament which I put on the list
yesterday. It spells out quite clearly (I think) to not change the A4.
That is the only note that is ever correct on any piano (we hope).

Tuning pure 5ths temperament is just like tuning the Baldassin/Sanderson
temperament at the beginning except the octaves A-A and F-F must be made
wider (almost 2.0 bps), and consequently the 4ths are almost twice their
normal speed. Everything else falls in quite similar to regular equal
temperament.

I interpose a 5th early on just to make estimating the octave spread
comparison to the 4ths a little easier.

When you print out that set of instructions, you may have better success.
If you have never tuned the Baldassin/Sanderson temperament, I highly
recommend it to you and everyone else. The latest versions including the
Kimbell/Tremper/Coleman variety are a little more helpful. Once a person
can tune that temperament easily, tuning the pure 5ths temperament
variation is a snap.

The notation using C c c' c'' etc. is very confusing. Historically there
have been I think 7 different varieties of this system. The American
Acoustical Society adopted a system where the lowest C is called C1 and
the highest C is called C8. The notes below C1 are called A0, A#0, and B0.
The piano industry likes to use note numbers starting with A0 as note 1,
and C8 as note 88. These two systems are most popular in piano talk.
Many organists and Harpsichordist still like to use the terms 16 ft,
8 ft, 4 ft, 2 ft etc. This confuses piano people. This was very logical
to organ people where a rank of pipes starting with 8' length was called
the 8' rank. We've never had any pianos or harpsichords which started with
a C which was 8' or 16' in length, so that terminology loses some of its
significance in pianos except as related to organ pitches etc.

Jim Coleman, Sr.

On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Richard Moody  wrote:

> I was thinking of trying to lower the A4 by as much as it takes to
> get a pure fifth.  

Are you thinking of A4 as note # 37? Note # 37 is A3 (the 4th A on the
piano.) I know, this seems confusing until you realize that the lowest
A on the piano is called A0 in American terminology.

However this assumes one is tuning from an
> established ET octave.   
> 	I have no  problem tuning tempered octaves, but tuning pure fifths
> is, well very  unusual. It is not the same as tuning pure octaves, at
> least so it seems in these early stages.  Perhaps it is because diff
> and more remote partials are involved. 

Tuning pure 5ths is just as easy as tuning tempered 5ths, You just make
the 6th-10th test equal instead of tempering the 10th slower.

You use the same partials in your judgments.

> 	I am impressed by hearing pure fifths in music (from a keyboard) I
> had grown up hearing tempered and then tuned ET for. I think though
> in
> this second attempt I came out (was forced to smaller octaves, out of
> ingrained habit)  that I really ended up with tempered fifths, but
> much purer than I have ever known.  Maybe one has to evolve into
> this. I think what will happen to aural tuners is that on successive
> attempts we will get bolder with wider octaves. Or perhaps become
> like the early tuners and stick the wolf where the sun don't shine. :
> ). 

There will be no wolf in pure 5ths temperament. The wider octaves eat up
the wolf. However, the wider octaves do force the 4ths to be wider, but
nothing like a wolf.

> 	It is also easy to make errors. Like when I tuned a' to d' pure
> thinking that tuning the next fourth down,   d' to a, I would get a
> stretched octave, and then wonder why I didn't.  Like duh.  While we
> are on that subject, I wonder why the notation I used above isn't in
> more general use?    Isn't that what organists and harpsichordists
> use?  Why let the compass of the keyboard dictate nomenclature? And
> why start at the bottom note even? Every keyboard has a middle C why
> not start there?   Besides its so simple.  Middle C is   c'    the C
> above
> is    c"     the C below MC is    c     the C below that is      C   
>    which is,, hold on
> I gotta look it up,, is C2.   Anyhow Groves should be definitive on
> this so some one with more immediate access correct me if wrong. Even
> c''' (C5) is no problem is ASCII.   Also tell me if my guess is right
> that C1 would be C' . 

There are too many systems similar to this that get confusing.


> 	If you ask me,  I think it would be more logical to have the octave
> below middle C in caps and the octave above in smalls, and then the 
> primes, but logic and music when not a conendrum, (hmm can't spell
> that, how bout "conidium"), is on a very esoteric level.
> Maybe I'll put Jim's tuning procedure in the "traditional"? 
> nomenclature
> to see if it is really easier.  But some one with Groves please make
> sure I have this right, or AGO at least. : ) 
> 
> Ricahrd Moody 
> 
> ----------
> > From: Jim <pianotoo@IMAP2.ASU.EDU>
> > To: Frank Weston <waco@ari.net>
> > Cc: pianotech@ptg.org
> > Subject: Re: ramblin' (tuning by pure 5ths)
> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 11:50 PM
> > 
> > 
> > As I had promised others earlier, I am now sending a tuning system
> for
> > aurally tuning a temperament which I have proven out myself aurally
> > independently and in comparison with the stretched Sat tuning used
> > previously.
> 
> 
> snip....
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Jim Coleman, Sr.
> > 
> > PS I would sure like to hear back from the brave sould who actually
> try
> > this. But be sure to play some music on it before you tell me how
> much
> > you do not like the single octaves. JWC
> 
> 
> Rac. C#minor, Apashionsonata :), Pathetique, The funeral
> dirge,(Chopin
> Prelude).  Actually with out octaves and chords how do you notice it?> 
>
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating." The same goes for tuning
and playing.

Jim Coleman, Sr.