(Clair Dunn) writes:
>> I very casually checked some of the numbers against the ET and found
>> very small differences.
>> However, I did definitely hear a difference. I would like to know
>> more about the Moore temperament specifically if anyone has
>> information about it.
Jorgensen gives the instructions for this tuning in chapt. 163 of "Tuning".
>Why is it called the Moore temperament and what
>> is the general consensus about the audible differences?
It is named after the Moore and Moore Co. that supplied a tuning for Ellis's
tests in 1885. It comes from a Harmonium that was tuned and submitted for
testing. It is a mild tuning, as far as well-temperaments go. The
most consonant thirds are at the bottom of the circle of fifths, with C-E an
G-B tuned only 9.6cents wide, D-F# at 11.6, A-C# is 13.6 and then there are 6
thirds of 15.6 cents width before reaching the Bb-D of 13.6 and the F-A at
11.6. This follows the general shape of well-tempering, not too distant
from the best Broadwood's tuner involved in these tests. However, the
Broadwood's best tuning has a more consonant C (6.6 cents) and four thirds
that are tempered at 17 cents. The intervening keys like G, D, A, Bb, and F
are progressive inbetween these extremes.
>> I actually tuned a customer's piano with the Moore yesterday. They
>> have two pianos--the daughter plays the fairly decent Lesage Console
>> and the husband plays the big old Ellington upright (1911). It was
>> the Ellington I tuned with the Moore.
Don't be surprised if they want the other tuned the same way. The effects of
WT are usually more pronounced on the smaller pianos, depending on how they
are used. (not many people play Liszt on consoles)
The ETD's are the easiest way to produce these alternate tunings and I
would guess that 95% of the WT tuners out there are using the machines. If
one can aurally tune an ET, then the WT's are really easy, once you get past
the learning curve. However, the machines had made far more techs willing to
investigate the topic and I think the musical world will be better for it.
I didn't trust mine at first, so I laboriously followed Owen's aural
instructions for a couple of the temperaments, then checked my results with
what happened when I simply dumped his numbers onto recorded tunings. The
differences between procedures are so minute that I consider them moot.
There may be differences at the academic level, but for the working
technician, the machines are simply labor saving devices and represent no
compromise of consideration, (by that I mean, listening to the two tunings in
use doesn't show ANY difference, even if under technical scrutiny there may
be found divergence). Machines do assure one of repeatable results, and
allow cumulative refinement each time the program is called up. This is one
aspect of machine tuning that the aural tuner misses.
I had a problem with the Broadwood tuning last weekend. The piano was
to be used with a set of vibes and I erroneously assumed that the vibes would
be at 442. Wrong! The player is under an endorsement contract with the
maker and had a set of custom bars at 440. He noticed the 5 cent difference
on the G, F and C.
Can't win them all.....
Regards,
Ed Foote RPT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC