Orlando Tuneoff

[Richard Moody]

----------
> From: Leslie W Bartlett <lesbart@juno.com>
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Re: Orlando Tuneoff
> Date: Thursday, July 24, 1997 1:54 AM
> The results of this experiment are gratifying to me.
> 
> 
> Leslie Bartlett
> 
> lesbart@juno.com
>    He beat me fair and
> >square. However, the scoring was still within the 60-40 split
which we
> >had both predicted.  He received 57%, and I received 43% of the
vote.
> >Both of my tunings were done in nearly pure 5ths
temperament......... 

 What did his fifths sound like??  (just like mine since I tune
aurally??)  I assume the "nearly pure 5ths temperament" is the  (Jim
Coleman's) result of the 2.004 octave stretch.  I am convinced after
two months (at least 7 tries in this temperament) I could present a
"nearly pure fifths" temperament for performance in another four 
months aurally.  With machine I  assume it could be done in a week or
two. Its enough to make me go out an buy one, execpt for budget
priorities. With all of the great techonolgical advances in piano
manufacture in the last half of this twentieth century, maybe tunings
deserve the same technological input. <sigh> 
	While I admit there might be an advantage in machine tunings in ET
in the temperament intervals and octave stretching, I still wonder
about the unisons, and how the pins are set with machine tuning. And
then what to do about variations caused by temperature and
environment changes.  By ear one decides whether to change
differences or not; but what to do, when the machine shows "off" by
so much or so little?(and it always does, doesn't it?) 
	Anyhow the "stretching" of the temperament octave from 2.00 to 2.004
to get (near) pure fifths is a very significant, nay, ultra
significant suggestion by Jim Coleman. I  am really surprised that
the "tune off" results were not in his favor using this stretch.  Hmm
maybe fifths and fourth beating as least as possible and octaves pure
as possible is the way to go. At least that's the way I was trained. 
But I will still investigate the 2.004 octave. Why can't an octave
sound like a tempered fifth on the sharp side? Sounds good to me. 


Richard Moody