ricB wrote: And dont get me wrong.... I am pretty much on this wagon myself..... its just that my results so far simply do not bear out your own. I have had a few exceptions... like the Broadwoods best # 5 quasi ET.... but then that didnt even qualifie as a Well temperament. <end> I can't help but wonder if you went too strong. Have you had a chance to try ones with smaller offsets? Even the Broadwood's best (that Ed uses)is pretty heavy duty for a first step! I did a demo last year, bunch of pianos spread around the college with different temperaments, some strong, some not. But even the one with the Penny (check it out at rollingball.com) was obvious to those that were listening for it. That temperament was created for the demo to show what a maximum of one cent in the offsets can produce, however I think the KV1 plays nicer... A tuning I did for another tech, using my KV1.9 (max offset=1.9 cents) was obvious to him, and he mentioned that he may want to rethink how he played some cadences in the remote keys. I've always considered the primary benefit of the temperaments is for the performer. Even if they don't realize what's different, I get positive comments about the sound. (Kindof like small changes in voicing being percieved as changes to the touch, or the opposite!...) I started this thread not so much as a re-opening of the HT-ET discussion, but the recommendation for those willing techs to try out modern well temperaments created from scratch to try and maximize some of the strong points of the historical temperaments. There's enough variation in the historical record to suggest that many different temperaments were in common use, sharing similar attributes. I was hoping to give some reasons to try something new...... Ron Koval Chicagoland _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC