Bernhard Stopper wrote: >Ric wrote: > >> think also, if you look closely enough at both this simple and >>straightforward rendering of a P-12ths tuning concept, and for that >>matter Dr. Colemans far more well founded and theoretically based P-5ths >>temperament have significant differences then the <<originals>> you cite. >> >> > >What now? simple and straightforward? or need to be well founded and >theoretically based? >significant differences to what? have you ever read the book of Serge >Cordier or my article? > > Lets keep things separated here. My P12th rendering is the simple and straightforward thing. Coleman know a bit more about what he is doing. Two different things. The dispute over Cordiers / Coleman has been up before and I dont particularly want to go there. As far as my P12th rendering is concerned.... it is a simple specification for how to set up a tuning and has been repeatedly described in terms of using Tunelab to create a base curve for a <<temperament 12th>>. What little I have seen of your article seems to take the whole subject off into a far more complicated direction. In anycase... I had no idea of your paper, nor of Bill Ballard earlier publication or of other writings on the matter when I came up with the idea on my own a couple years ago. And to be frank... I couldnt care less about "earning merits" as you say over the matter. You can have all the credit over the matter you wish as far as I am concerned. >For me an equal tempered tuning is enoughly described when referring it to >an equal spaced pure interval like a pure 12th or pure 5th or pure 8th. > > Well... FWIW.. the P12th tuning I describe has specifically D3's 3rd partial and A4's fundamental equal, with A3 set as a perfect 6:3 octave to A4. Then sampling the resulting 3rd partials of A3 and A4 I use Robert Scotts quadratic interpolation to create the spacing between the 19 semitones. Your generalization above kinda sweeps over just about anything anyone ever coulda thought of, so I suppose its hard to escape being encompassed by it. >Inharmonicity is an instrument immanent relativity offset factor that pushes >every tuning described by its >generating formula together with the instrument specific inharmonicity curve >to the individual absolute frequencies. > > Wonderful.... but really I think we know this already. >Ok you could "reinvent" also all historic tunings by calculating them on an >Excel table or ETD with all inharmonicity related to every >existing instrument. Nice work and a lot of merits to gain here... ;) > > > Its ok Bernhard. You get to be the <<First Guy>>. I'm plenty happy knowing I came up with this idea on my own, which in the end is a very small pleasure in the greater scheme of things. Now... if you will excuse me I dont think I want to continue with what increasingly appears to be silly tangent to this whole subject. Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC