Billbrpt, At 09:33 10/24/2000 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/24/00 8:20:00 AM Central Daylight Time, >hoffsoco@martin.luther.edu (Conrad Hoffsommer) writes: > ><< Wrong! What it did was to show that _your_ ET was a pretty good RW. > >> > >Now you are caught! This statement shows that even you do not understand >what a backwards version of a Well-Tempered tuning would be. Darn! Busted!! YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!!! A better way of saying what I was thinking might be that if your RW passed the ET test at 82.5%, then the reverse would also be true. Had you set RW as the standard, your ET would have passed as 82.5% of RW. N'est-ce pas? If you are referring to the fact that I couldn't look at that bunch of numbers and deduce that you had tuned an obverse well rather than a reverse one, YOU ARE RIGHT!! There I said it. Happy? When I tune, I use my ears. I do not watch die blinkenlights. I do not watch a needle swing back and forth. I do not watch a cat-eye blink at me. I do not punch numbers in a box. I listen. Your numbers are as intelligible to me as Sanscrit. If I had had the opportunity to HEAR what you refer to as Reverse Well at Arlington, perhaps I would be able to say if I do indeed tune RW as you suspect. You, however, chose not to appear at the convention and teach your promised class. I had been planning to go to that class. How can I know the truth if you are not there to deliver it? >One of the assertions I've been interested in documenting is that the >aural tuners who talk the way you do about ET vs. HT almost always tune >RW. 90% if not more. Post a workable protocol and I'm sure an experiment could be done. > Post the numbers from one of your aural ET's and we'll see if that >applies to you, which I strongly suspect it does. Here are numbers from six: 379423 449829 477425 379590 279122 329612 The only numbers I see while I am tuning are the instrument serial numbers, which I doubt would help either one of our arguments. >Read the first page of Owen's book and BELIEVE IT OR STUFF IT! Oh, OK. I'll look... From "Tuning" - Owen Jorgensen Preface, p.xxi, paragraph 3: "As late as 1889, a knowledgeable authority wrote that "some discrimination is commonly used in favor of certain keys less favored." Would this perhaps be Alexander Ellis who on page 2 is quoted as saying "Not one of the old tuners Mr Hipkins knew... tuned anything like equal temperament."? I prefer to see what Owen Jorgensen, himself, wrote more than a century later, in 1991. Back in the preface, paragraph 4, he states: "Modern technicians are capable of doing theoretically exact mathematical tempering." So, Bill, are you really quoting Owen as the source of the inability to tune ET, or are you actually quoting Ellis refering to Hipkins? Correct me, please, if I have zeroed in on the wrong quote. Conrad Hoffsommer - mailto:hoffsoco@luther.edu You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC