Broadwood Best

[Richard Moody]

----- Original Message -----
From: Jason Kanter <jkanter@rollingball.com>
To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Broadwood Best


> Jorgensen goes to great lengths to correct Ellis's figures....


Yes, and that is a major issue as far as historiography is
concerned.  It  is OK to "correct" but to make it a scholastic
endeavor  the figures being corrected must also be given. That way
you
can make up your mind about whose opinion you want to go with, the
original researcher, (Ellis in this case) or the interpretation of
someone 120 years later.
    I must commend you for publishing  figures of  temperaments in
comparison to each other in a graphical format.  It is a novel
approach utilizing recent technology.    It might be interesting
to see such a comparison between Jorgensen's interpretation of
Ellis's data and Ellis's original data.



.> based on the presumption that some notes in the tuning had to
have >changed during the 2 weeks between tuning and measurement.
>I guess Jorgensen was moved to do this because the figures Ellis
>published don't display a very regular tuning. But his reasoning
is >sound, if speculative.
> ..........
> .  jason kanter .

Yes, not only was he moved to change some of the data Ellis
collected but apparently ignored a fresher tuning that measured
 out much closer to ET.  So it is a simple question of what data
do you want to consider, the original, or the "corrected".?
   When you publish the cents offsets of "Broadwood's Best"
it is helpful (and necessary imho) to indicate that your figures
are "corrections"  derived by somebody else 120 years later from
the original.  Or simply  publish both sets of figures, label them
accordingly, and let the readers decide.      ---rm











> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Broadwood Best
>
>
> | A couple of issues.  The cents offsets on the web site are
given
> | to two decimal places.  Ellis only gave whole cent figures.
How
> | you can translate whole cent figures into two place I would
like
> | to know.
> |      The "best" is said to come from "line 4 "   Actually if
you
> | look at the original source which is Ellis appendices in
> | Helmholtz, the best tuning or the one closest to ET comes from
> | line  5 .  So why wasn't that used?
> |     However looking at the original line four from Ellis,  it
> | appears the web site is much further from Ellis than #4 was
from
> | ET.  So the only conclusion can be that some one is mistaken
or
> | relying on a source too far away from the original which is
Ellis'
> | figures in Helmholtz.  ---rm
> |         "may the source be with you"
> |
> |
> |
> | ----- Original Message -----
> | From: Vanderhoofven <dkvander@joplin.com>
> | To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> | Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:51 AM
> | Subject: Broadwood Best
> |
> |
> | > Hi ric,
> | >
> | > Here is Jason Kanter's web page which has graphs of the
> | different tunings.
> | >
> | > http://rollingball.com/TemperamentsFrames.htm
> | >
> | > click on Victorian Well and then you will see where you can
> | click on
> | > Broadwood Best.  A graph will appear in the right side of
the
> | screen and
> | > the offsets from Equal Temperament are included in the info
on
> | the chart
> | > below the graph.
> | >
> | > The Broadwood Best, Broadwood Usual, and Moore are all nice
mild
> | sounding
> | > temperaments.
> | >
> | > Sincerely,
> | > David Vanderhoofven
> | > Joplin, MO