Unequal Temperaments

[A440A@AOL.COM]

Inre my suggestion on using machines to tune,  Bill Bremmer replies:

<<Now ask yourself, is this really any way to tune a piano?  

       Yes,  it is a very fine way to tune a piano.  At least,  at the top 
end of the professional world where I spend most of my time,  these tunings, 
ET and non ET from my machine and ears have been not only accepted, but 
constantly remarked upon.    If one is tuning junk, then the machine is of 
limited value, as it cannot make the compromises required to handle a poor 
scale.  


>>Is this a way to  get to know and understand what temperaments are all 
about?  

       Yes, it is the ideal way.  Understanding  temperaments requires 
hearing music played upon them, the machine will get you there quicker than 
anything else.  

>>What kinds of effects can be expected?  Which kind of temperament would be 
best to use for  which piano under which circumstances?<<

    That decision best comes from one that has listened to enough different 
music played on different tunings,  how those tunings were created is 
immaterial.  You don't have to know how to build a car to drive one properly.

>>Let's see, you take measurements of the difference in inharmonicity between 
two different partials on three different notes first, then wait a few 
seconds while the ETD makes a calculation for you.  Do you trust that 
calculation?  <<

   Yes,  I trust that calculation with my professional reputation.  I have 
for the last 8 years and haven't seen any  "shortcomings" yet.  
 
>>If the temperament you are using has irregularly tempered intervals, does 
it 
not also make sense that you may want to "temper" your octaves a little 
differently as well?  <<

   No,  that doesn't make any sense.  On any reasonably well made grand 
piano, I haven't found there to be any appreciable difference between an 
aural recreation of any of these temperaments (by following the Jorgensen 
rules for tuning),  and using the FAC correction numbers.  The differences 
being given as reasons for aural temperament tuning are so small as to be 
disregarded.  If a room full of technicians can mistakenly identify a 
Victorian tuning for ET, ( documented by Jim Coleman), then the differences 
between a machine HT and an aural HT mean absolutely nothing at all to a 
practical musician.  
    As far as practical goes,  Murry Barbour put out all the info needed to 
aurally tune the temperaments, and nothing happened. No growing interest, no 
recordings, no dialogue in the Guild, no factory interest, etc.  That was the 
state of temperament awareness for 50 years prior to Al Sanderson and his 
magic blue box.  
     Since the publication of Jorgensen's offsets, and the development of the 
programmable machines, there has been a large resurgence of interest in the 
temperaments.  This is the wave of the future, and it is very gratifying to 
see so many more people now taking an interest in the subject.  
     I submit that the temperament revival would not have happened without 
the machines, and I see no evidence in the past or present to contradict 
that.   
Regards, 
Ed Foote RPT