<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [CAUT] HT suggestions</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> On 12/8/05 10:51 AM, "Avery Todd" <atodd@= uh.edu> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>I really don't want to use Broadwoo= d Best for this. It's just way too mild for what I'd like to try & do. </BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Avery,     Just to clarify, there are two “Broadwood Bes= t” tunings, derived from two separate measurements (of two separate tu= nings) made by Alexander Ellis. Both appear on the same table in Jorgenson&#= 8217;s book, along with the “Broadwood Usual” tunings. The Broad= wood Best (Ellis tuner #5) tuning is quite mild, almost not noticeably diffe= rent from ET. Broadwood Best (Ellis tuner #4) is fairly pungent, with lots o= f key contrast. Offsets are A 0.0 A# +4.0 B –1.0 C +5.0 C# +1.0 D +3.0 D# +3.0 E –2.0 F +5.0 F# 0.0 G +5.0 G# +2.0 In contrast, Ellis tuner #5 doesn’t stray beyond 2.0 cents. Valotti r= anges from –3.9 to +7.8. The other tunings I mentioned are in the gene= ral range of BB #4, with Preston being the mildest (milder than BB #4). All = are intermediate between Valotti or Werckmeister and ET – noticeable i= f you’re listening, but more subtle. The patterns of all are quite sim= ilar, as one would expect. Ellis tuner #4 could easily have been tuning Pete= r Prelleur, with differences just being normal operator error. Regards, Fred Sturm University of New Mexico </BODY> </HTML>