Kanter's new graph on Website

[Jason Kanter]

Jorgensen's actual words: "... three pages of calculations were done according to your instructions. As you can see on page number 2, there is an imbalance on DbF. To correct this imbalance, I made the following change in your instructions: Step 13 now specifies that G#3 should be tuned pure from C#4 like you originally had it..." 

The resulting figures are titled by Jorgensen: "The improved Bremmer when G# and D# are both tuned pure from C#". 

Perhaps Bill would have achieved the improved form on his own. The earlier versions were imbalanced, producing a too-wide E M3, as you can see from the charts of Bill's own tunings, from all the theoretical graphs, and from John Formsma's reason for abandoning the EBVT. Bill was experimenting with changed instructions in an attempt to reduce the size of the E M3. That's obviously why he was trying out tuning G#3 one beat wide from C#4, instead of pure. 

Ed Foote was the first person to call attention to the imbalance in the E M3, when Bill posted my graph and gave it fanfare. Ed's comments are what precipitated the recent improvement in the EBVT, which is now at a stage that is worth trying out. The venom unfortunately clouds everything.

This should be the end of the discussion. But as Faulkner said, "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <SidewaysWell1713@aol.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 4:40 AM
Subject: Kanter's new graph on Website


| To all interested,
| 
| I put Jason Kanter's new graph on my website to replace the old one which was 
| quite good but factually inaccurate.  Unfortunately, there is still an 
| inaccurate statement right at the top of it but as before, I'll let it stand 
| until Jason has the chance to change it.
| 
| Jorgensen made no changes to the EBVT, I did.  The notes which were changed 
| were Bb3 and Eb4, not G# as stated in the graph.  What took place is this, 
| nothing more nor less:  The EBVT aural instructions as they were, presented a 
| very neat, easy to follow sequence where there was only one specification 
| given, the initial 6 beats per second.  Every subsequent interval was either 
| tuned pure of exactly the same as another.  This follows the classic and 
| highly refined form of temperament construction known as the "Equal Beating 
| Temperaments".
| 
| Unfortunately, this created a *theoretical* imbalance, that is, a problem on 
| paper but not necessarily in practice.  I still have and still use custom 
| programs with the old instructions where Bb3-F4 is pure and in which there is 
| no improper imbalance.  Some of these programs are as old as 9 years, have 
| never been changed, are still used and will continue to be used because there 
| is nothing incorrect about them, in spite of the fact that in theory, there 
| should be.  I still construct some of my temperaments aurally, using the old 
| instructions.  The new ones, although theoretically correct, don't always 
| work. This is due to the effects of inharmonicity and scaling irregularities. 
|  
| 
| In order to make the idea work out theoretically, I had to think of which 
| changes I could make and offered those suggestions to Jorgensen who tried 
| them all.  The changes I made were among those I have always used to make an 
| aural temperament work out. One of the suggestions was to temper the G#3-C#4 
| 4th but that proved to be unnecessary, theoretically but it is still one of 
| the options I use.  In the end, I only had to temper the Bb3-F4 5th by 1 beat 
| per second.  This is not an "improvement".  When that word is used in 
| temperament construction, it means that an interval is either made pure or 
| less tempered than before.
| 
| Therefore, the "improvement" which was made was to now make the Ab3-Eb4 5th 
| pure, when it previously had been tempered.  The revelation by Kent Swafford 
| that the B3-E4 4th is pure had always been the case, I just had not realized 
| it and I really do appreciate his insight.
| 
| The slight changes which were made in the aural instructions were made by me 
| with no suggestions from anyone else on what needed to be done to make the 
| temperament theoretically correct.  Owen Jorgensen was, in the end, the only 
| person who was able to tell me which of the many possibilities would work.
| 
| Jason Kanter, Ron Koval and Kent Swafford were all helpful by their analyses 
| and in the ways they pointed out that there was a theoretical problem.  Ed 
| Foote, on the other hand, saw information he knew did not really reflect the 
| EBVT accurately and used it to try to undermine the entire idea and destroy 
| its credibility.  Even after being told that this information itself was 
| under review and due to be corrected, he persisted with his credibility 
| assaults.
| 
| In his most recent post, Ed Foote has announced that he will do the same 
| thing again as soon as he finds the opportunity.  This has been his pattern 
| of behavior for as long as I have had any contact with him.
| 
| I'll remove this screen name, the spiteful name Ed Foote called the EBVT, and 
| the entire signature when Ed Foote admits that the things he has written were 
| done so purely out of spite, vindictiveness and in an effort to destroy 
| credibility.  That kind of behavior violates the PTG Code of Ethics.  As long 
| as Ed Foote continues his campaign of hatred and spite, I will continue to 
| show it for what it is.  Whatever he can come up with, I can match and and 
| exceed.  It is up to Ed Foote to stop, when he does, I won't have any reason 
| to expose his behavior for what it is.  Ed Foote should give up on trying to 
| attack the credibility of the EBVT now that it has been shown and proven to 
| be a valid idea.
| 
| "Sideways Well":  the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he 
| knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. 
| 
| Bill Bremmer RPT
| Madison, Wisconsin
| <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> 
| 
| 
|