Acceptable levels of error

[Richard Moody]

Some interesting points about accuracy, and how do we judge HT btw? 
Who has trained under an old master in any of these temps?  The
machine may be accurate enough, but I fear the aural tradition of 
HTs  has been lost.  At least they have been written down in beats
per second. 
	There is another point of accuracy that has not been raised, and
perhaps our musician friends can help out.  Doesn't it matter where
you start when you tune an uneven temperament.   If the piece is to
be in G minor, and once you select the temp. isn't there a optimal
starting point for G minor.  Would the starting point be different if
it were say C minor? Perhaps a knowledge of music theory would aid in
that answer.  Another reason for asking is that the title of the
Vallotti/Young (I am reading)  is, "Tuning the Transposed Vallotti
Well Temperament of 1781 According to Thomas Young's Rules of 1799." 
What does "Transposed" mean?.  The scheme starts from middle C.

Richard Moody     

----------
> From: BobDavis88@aol.com
> To: pianotech@ptg.org
> Subject: Acceptable levels of error
> Date: Monday, February 09, 1998 2:55 PM
> 
> > A WT or meantone can fit a broad-ranged description.
> >  It can have any number of "errors" in it and still function and
be a WT or
> MT.
> >  It's only "equal" if it is.
> -------------
> Meaning no disrespect, then it's only Werckmeister III if it is. I
think
> there's a "modulation" in the logic here. Pretend for a moment that
we have
> decided that the ideal temperament crucial to a particular musical
program or
> piece is the Valotti/Young. If an ET with a couple of half-cent
errors is
> still a temperament, but no longer functions as ET; then, is a
Valotti/Young
> with a couple of half-cent errors still a temperament but no longer
> recognizable as Valotti-Young?
> 
> When does the concept of Just Noticeable Difference  [I like it --
is that
> yours, Ed Foote?]  come into play for a SPECIFIC well-temperament?
If we are
> going to complain about inaccuracies in one temperament, don't we
have to hold
> all temperaments to the same standard? If a Valotti/Young is not
perfectly
> accurate but can still function satisfactorily, so can an ET with
the same
> level of error, I think.
> 
> Bob Davis