Hello Richard, i admire your knowledge and wit i am sure it is principally not necessary to compete. I am happy with my Tunic and my aural OnlyPure approach and theoretical findings about my tuning, and you are happy with the way you tune. I am sure we could discuss our standpoints in a more relaxed manner. There is abviously still a slight misunderstanding of the theoretical basics about equal temperaments and what was presented in the Schulze article. Schulze defined a temperament based on the 31th root of six, which is not equivalent to a 19th root of three temperament. A quote from his article: "Still more control can be gained by incorporating a different, albeit compatible system of temperament: the equally tempered perfect nineteenth. Assuming that an ideal tuning is one which contains the most nearly coincidental partials, inharmonicity then becomes quite convenient." By using this equal temperament of a perfect nineteenth, he can attempt to tune (many) twelfths and nineteenths on a pure 3/1 and 6/1 partial level (using the common known partial checks) and use them as control intervals, due to inharmonicity. This is slightly different from my own real world (piano) approach, which results in twelfths that are slightly wider (accomplished aurally with the twelfth spanner tool from my initial method, the newer aural OnlyPure method or with my Tunic software) than on a strict 3/1 partial level. In abscence of inharmonicity, my tuning is based on an equal tempered duodecime (twelfth). This obviously caused initially some irritations between us, but that should be no problem anymore. As Schulze explicitely introduced an equal temperament based on a perfect nineteenth, i don´t see his article as a prior art of my tuning approaches and theories. Sincerely, Bernhard Stopper Am 28.04.2009 um 21:36 schrieb Richard Brekne: > Bernhard > > No, the point is that you just dont seem to be able to accept that I > came up with my own P-12ths idea without any knowledge of you or > your work nor being influenced by you in any way. It was nearly 10 > years ago now and it does matter exactly given the kind of > accusations you keep leveling at me. Since you were unwilling to see > the obvious truth of this from reading my early posts on the subject > and pressed me to produce some evidence of other influence I did > so. How anyone could read Gary's article and conclude anything else > then that he was working with 12ths and 19th priority tuning rather > then octave priority is beyond me... And indeed... he says this > outright himself. It is no feat of genius to go from there to > simply tuning the whole piano by twelfths, dividing some middle 12th > up into the 19th root of three as a starting point.... just a cute > idea that happened to work. And yes... I shared this idea with > others.... naturally enough. > > As I said... I dont give a hoot about who's first and have never > claimed to be first myself. To what degree Garys article or any > other that surfaces constitutes prior knowledge in the context you > are concerned about is not for me to judge... nor do I care. Gary's > article would have no doubt stayed hidden in its 1982 journal had > you not just accepted that I didnt know anything about you or your > work. So whatever authenticity issues there are now out in the world > are things you have yourself to thank for I am afraid. > > Once again... for my part I acknowledge that you were ... what 12 > years ahead of me with this idea ? But I will not accept these > insinuations that I deliberately and knowingly pirated this idea > from you or have tried to "construct a prior art myth" of any > kind. Garys article stands on its own. > > Can we stop this now ? > RicB > > > The point is, that you came out on the list with this "new" > tuning idea about six years ago (+-, it doesn´t matter > exactly). As i jumped on the list to enlighten you that there > was published work by me on the matter, it was apparantly quite > hard for you to accept this fact. All your writing about the > matter in return had the intention to "construct" a prior art > myth before my work in return. You did not even hesitate to > twist the truth for that attempt. In no place in Gary Schulze´s > article he expresses his intention to set up a pure > twelfth temperament. He is presenting an equal temperament of > the 31th > root of six, to achieve as much as intervals as pure as > possible. The formula you formerly presented on the CAUT list > as "prove", simply expressed not what you wanted to interpreted > from it. > > > Bernhard Stopper > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090502/71f9f8a0/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC