<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Oct 12, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Richard Brekne wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Just a thought on the tuning test idea.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>The present RPT test is to my mind of thinking absurdly time consuming to set up and execute.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Nor do I believe it should be necessary to have it such.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>A tuning standard can be easily defined in terms of what decided upon sets of coincident partials behave like when tuned.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>As a banal example, one could simple ask the examinee to execute a bass tuning from say D3 downwards in terms of exact 6:3 types. This is extremely easy to measure afterwards and requires no prior set up... outside of a reasonably detuned instrument.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>It doesn't take much imagination to see how this principle could be applied to encompass a real tuning that is quite acceptable in real life terms.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>One added benefit of this approach would be that the examinee would know ahead of time exactly what is expected of him/her.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>This is far from always the case in the present system.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>I would think it would be nonproblematic to extend this approach to a very demanding test.</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Cheers</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">RicB</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Hi Ric,</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>This is, in fact, very close to the current concept for a caut tuning test. We analyze a sequence of coincident partials for consistency. It could, of course, be 6:3 octaves as you mention. And there are many other possibilities as well. Our initial plan is to look at double and triple octaves, the 4:1 and 8:1 partial matches, and see how evenly they progress. If something is out of kilter, it should show up pretty clearly.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>But we don't, in this early draft version, plan to ask the examinee to do anything but tune "your best concert tuning," explaining that we will look particularly for crystal clear and rock solid unisons, and for evenness of stretch in the outer octaves. IOW, no artificial constraints, just do what you normally do in that circumstance.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>I think the requirement that all unisons be within 0.5 cents tolerance after pounding is pretty demanding, though well within what I hope most of us are producing on a day to day basis. Beta testing will reveal whether or not this is so, and whether we might need to fudge a little to, say, 0.6 or something, and possibly more in high treble where ETD resolution can be a problem.</DIV><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </SPAN>How the analysis of partial matches will work: well, it is at least an intriguing concept, and seems worth exploring. On the face of it, it seems like it should work like a charm, but proof is in the pudding.<BR><DIV><DIV>Regards,</DIV><DIV>Fred Sturm</DIV><DIV>University of New Mexico</DIV><DIV><A href="mailto:fssturm@unm.edu">fssturm@unm.edu</A></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV></BODY></HTML>