what's with the new temperaments?(x post)

[Richard Moody]

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Koval <drwoodwind@hotmail.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:02 AM
Subject: what's with the new temperaments?(x post)


>
> ric M wrote about the Broadwood's Best being ET:
>
> I think you are referring to an opinion of a modern writer.  If
> James Broadwood in 1811 claims to be tuning equal temperament,
>why  not accept that?
> "...the old system of temperament is now deservedly abandoned,
and
> the equal temperament generally adopted.."  James Broadwood,
1811.
>
>
> Ah, now I'm beginning to understand.....
>
> The danger in studying history, is to believe that what they
wrote is
> true....

It is clear James Broadwood  was talking about the attempt to tune
ET.  . How close he came to ET of today is for speculation.

The example you give below is not close to ET.  But can you give
the source of your data?

> So, back to the Broadwood.... Yes, that was the ET of the day,
in >comparison to what had come before.  But, compared to what we
>accept as ET, this is not even close.

Actually a greater danger of studying history is accepting as
fact, evidence presented without naming the source.  It is not
"history" unless it can be verified by indepenedent research.
     The example you give is not close which suits your premise,
but you can't prove this represents what Broadwood actually tuned
all the time, most of the time or some of the time.  He could have
come very close at times.  How do you determine what to accept as
evidence?  You ask to look at the spread sheet below supposidly to
show, "what we expect to hear with the Broadwood's Best,"     of
the beat rates of 3rds presumable in chromatic order.  (from C to
c?)

>
> 4.9
> 14
> 9
> 14
> 17
> 8.7
> 19
> 8.5
> 20.2
> 18.8
> 17.1
> 25.5
> 9.8
>
> Hmmmm. not very smooth,   Yet, all keys are still playable, no
> "wolves" to run from....>
> ET?  Nope, not in my book!
>
> Ron Koval

If one believes the above figures then, yes that particular tuning
of James Broadwood did not come too close to ET.   But how do you
choose to believe the above figures?  The figures you present are
not from what is called the sources, but apparently a
modern opinion of what Broadwood presented in 1811 for Broadwood
never talked about beat rates of 3rds.   Or do we find these
figures come from Ellis 60 years later, and "necessarily adjusted"
by someone writing in 1990?
    If you are interested in the figures from Ellis obtained by
direct measurement of 4 of Broadwood's tuners ca 1880 I will be
glad to post those and the calculated beat rates of 3rds.
      ---rm