Over more than 6 years you have argumented that my work is predated by
the work of others, whithout presenting any proof.
Finally (in a october 2008 CAUT thread about P12 origins) you
presented the article of Gary Schulze from 1982.
You have claimed, that Schulze provided a nineteenth root of three
formula in his article, but i already figured out on the CAUT thread,
that you have simply misread a formula, so i find it quite annoying
that you reopen that again here.
In his article Schulze clearly introduces and favors a 6/1 equal
temperament over standard equal temperament, mainly to compensate for
inharmonicity. His intention is to get all far intervals of priority
(octave, double octave, duodecime, double octave and fifth) as pure as
possible. In fact all his work is about stretch to compensate for
inharmonicity. This is very different from thinking in "duodecimes
instead of octaves". His proposed 6/1 temperament whithout
inharmonicity is 31th root of six, and in terms of the natural form of
the fifth circle (introduced in my 1988 article) it means to split the
pythagorean comma in 31 parts over 19 octaves(added) and 12
duodecimes(distracted)". Schulze´s article clearly has no relevance
to my work.
It is highly obvious, that the nineteenth root of three scale has
propobably been thought as a possible alternative concept by
microtonal composers, or by other tuners (as Gary Schulze did as you
mention in his email) predating my work, but there was no public
writing so far (before 1988). All that was contributed to the public
into this direction was not backed up with any importance.
There are slightly differences in the methodology in my first posts on
the list, and what is produced by my new software or the aural
OnlyPure method, which was introduced in 2004. I tried to avoid the
"strange" spanner tool when i entered the list, as i had experience
with reactions from colleagues in europe ("tuning prothese" ) The
third partial-first partial reduction seemed to be a valid variation
at this time to me. I have found that the OnlyPure method requires the
"sweet spot" or "aural pure" duodecime achieved with the duodecime
spanner tool i have introduced with my initial publication in 1988,
instead of a strict third partial-first partial interval.
Beside all the above arguments, the nineteenth root of three scale
would stay only one out of a million possibilites, whithout my later
(2004) discovery of its singular structural symmetry (actually
prepared for publication), that produces the cancelling effects which
were confirmed in Kent´s review and allows for the "pure tuned" three
note protocol of the aural OnlyPure method.
Regards,
Bernhard Stopper
P.S.: As you have correctly noticed, i am actually reorganizing my
homepage.
Am 08.03.2009 um 21:15 schrieb Richard Brekne:
> Hi Ron
>
> Ron Koval writes:
> "There continues to be some confusion about OnlyPure being equated
> with a P-12ths tuning."
>
> Indeed. Up until about 6 months ago starting with Bernards first
> appearance on CAUT I was accused by said of ripping off his
> concept. What was that first post he wrote 6-7 years ago.....
> Started with something like "Thank you for using My P-12ths tuning.
> That continued in off and on fashion until after being challenged to
> produce the evidence of prior knowledge I'd claimed all along I
> finally responded by posting the month and year of Garys article,
> which predates Stopper by some 6 years. Now all of a sudden we are
> talking about two completely different tuning approaches. Equally
> sudden is the disappearance of the maths behind what Bernard calls
> the Stopper comma from his website... and from Wikpedia where it was
> quite evident until just a few months ago. Googling "Stopper Comma"
> yields to following link which used to hold the document http://www.piano-stopper.de/html/stopper_tuning1.html
> The only reference to that I can find is now at www.stopper-scale.
> com/ Stopper Scale which in itself starts off repeating the central
> affiliation to P-12ths.
>
> As far as your clues below I can only say that point number one is
> really not quite what he said.... nor have I said the P-12th thread
> I've been following along these years is strictly based on absolute
> perfect 3:1 12ths. Secondly... if you couldn't possibly have
> thoroughly experimented with the approach or you would most
> certainly find how to implement it on just about any piano. Dinky
> little spinets cant be "tuned" in the conventional sense of the word
> period... and no protocol, Stoppers included is going to change
> that. Its is in the nature of these beasts themselves and everyone
> knows this. I can guarantee that if Kent can find a small piano that
> responds well to the Stopper software... I could tune it quite
> nicely with my approach as well.
>
> As to your comment about matching just two partials. This has been
> the basis for discussion .... not some absolute thing you simply do
> not digress from. That said... if you do slavishly impose a 3:1 from
> D3 upwards you'd end up with a very nice sounding treble. And
> including the 6:1 and 6:2 in the bass you'll end up with a very nice
> bass. I agree... it is all very interesting.... and from a very
> rational point of view.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC