[CAUT] ET vs UET

[Fred Sturm]

On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Laurence Libin wrote:

> Bootman's is a neat device. Have you tried using it to tune a piano,  
> and have you gotten true ET? What is the range of the monochord, an  
> octave or more? The question whether or not it works is the critical  
> one for me, not Bootman's intention. Also, I'd stress his remark,  
> "All tuners try to obtain an equal temperament, but only a few . . .  
> succeed." Right.
> Laurence


	My take is quite different. I don't really care how well it works (I  
suspect it is pretty bad). It is a question of what it tells us about  
the mindset of the public. There is no hint that anything but the most  
precise ET is the goal of anyone wanting to tune a piano. It is an  
artifact of public opinion, whether or not it works. One more piece of  
data to add to all the others. Are there any balancing pieces of data  
suggesting tuners "artistically altering ET" to achieve better  
results? If anyone knows of even the slightest hint of such data,  
please bring it forward to be added to the mix.
	How well the device works only becomes interesting if we know that it  
was used in a critical situation, or by some known person or in a  
particular circumstance. I think we can all easily imagine how badly  
piano were often tuned, from our own experiences following  
incompetents of the present.
	It is, of course, a knock off of earlier devices from decades earlier  
in Europe - similar devices, sets of tuning forks, other tone  
producing designs to give a reference point for the ear. Some of them  
are roundly critiqued by Montal in some detail in his 1836 book.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
fssturm at unm.edu
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." Twain