I never did accuse Arnold and André, i know they are fine, you have me completely misunderstood, don´t turn the words in my mouth. I said that it was André who put you on the trail, and not yourself, this were your own words in another post! Nor do i accuse any tuner who adapted the P12 aurally, so no way to get an excuse from me. But i accuse those, who turned into P12 after having heard from others, selling the thing as their own. regards, Bernhard Richard Brekne schrieb: > Bernard > > You seem like a nice fellow, and we have hashed this through before. > I go out of my way to credit you for the work you did in the 70's.. or > whenever it was, since you first brought my attention to it. You no > doubt were influenced by people in your career and something > stimulated you to thinking along these lines... just like happened to > me. I actually do resent greatly your insistence that I am in so > many words a fake and a phony in this matter. The fact is that the > major 6th and double 10th comparisons I ran into some years back do > not add up to a perfect 12th tuning. They just happen to compare the > 3:1 coincident. They (these tests) were brought into the picture as > just one other test for helping one get octaves. No one mentioned > anything to me at any point about tuning straight out from a 12ths > perspective instead of an Octave. > > Now this is the deal Bernard... through history many folks have > thought up things all on their own, made developments all on their > own, without knowing of others works before, after, parallel ... > whatever. Happens all the time. Get used to it. In this case.. I have > time and time again since you first popped up claiming prior whatevers > on this idea acknowledged that you were before me. I have never tried > to take credit for being the first guy to ever come up with this > idea... quite the opposite... In fact I have insisted that it is quite > likely the idea precedes you as well. In fact I dont give a hoot > about any of this kind of thing. > > I do on the other hand take harm at someone insinuating time and time > again that I purposefully mislead people into thinking that the P-12 > tuning idea that I came up with and executed on Tunelab was my own. > It was, and all your nasty insinuations to the contrary will not > change that. I had no idea of what your work, and for your > information Andre was not the first person, nor the last for that > matter to <<introduce>> me to these tests. Not by a long shot. The > only real coincidence any of this has with Andre is that I had > developed sufficiently in my own right to add a couple 2 and 2's > together and think about what would happen if you just plain used > Tunelab to enforce P-12ths strictly and ignore any and all other > priorities. Nor did anyone give me any hint at all about looking at > the 9th root of 3. It wasnt a quantum leap to make or anything mind > you... since using the 12th root of 2 do divide an octave into even > bits had been around for ages... when one first decides to look at > 12ths... its a rather reasonable step to take. Yep... that piece of > <<brilliance>> was also all my own...despite it obviously having been > done elsewhere in the world unbeknownst to me previously. > > As for the rest of what you claim about Andre and Arnold, I think its > in kind of poor taste to publicly accuse people of what you do below > behind their backs as it were. I would point out tho your version of > <<history>> clearly admits a prior knowledge to your own of the basic > idea of using the 3:1 coincident as a tuning priority. I would also > underline that the first instance I ever ran into of P 12 ths thinking > was a PTG article in the early 80's or late 70's as I remember. At > the time I just read it with interest and dismissed the thought. I > never to this day have seen your own article... and since I had no > contact at all with Euro Piano prior to 1996 it is not likely that I > would have either. > > Now... I'd appreciate an apology from you on the matter. I do not, > nor do Andre and Arnold, whom are fine, respectable, and honest > technicians, deserve these kinds of remarks. Nor do you have any > reason whatsoever to feel threatened. Nobody at all has taken issue > with your work. In fact... In my first response along these lines > just yesterday I paid deference to that and mentioned you by name. > > Cordially > Richard Brekne > > > Ric, > > The guy who put you into the trail to P12 you was André Oorebek from > Amsterdam (you figured out in another post) and "a rather small > article > i found about in the seventies" (your own words, you still have to > find it) > > Both indicates and proofs that it was not yourself who pushed you up > into the thing. In practice, the "other guy" already did so. Now > for the > theory: Arnold Duin from Amsterdam, a former companion of André > Oorebek, > told me at a Mensurix workshop i hold in Amsterdam a few years ago at > their convention that they learned the major > sixth-doubleoctavemajorthird test from their old teacher who was not > firm with any theory about tuning, but a good tuner. They tried to > convince him, that it is not correct to do so from tuning theory. Some > years later, after my publication in euro-piano, they began to > adapt to > the P12. The article you mentioned was probably mine (the initial > publication of the pure twelfth temperement or "Stopper-Tuning" in > euro-piano 1988) So your finding was indirectly (via Andre) and > probably > directly (the article) initiated by my work about the matter. I really > hate to offend other people, but you do so to me a little by > continously > claiming independent authorship on the theoretical matter in your > posts. > > It was always my intention with the P12 temperament to get the tuning > theory compatible with what the best aural tuners tend to do, while > the > standard 12th root of two tempermant theory is not so. Mathematically > the 19th root of three temperament is on a first look only one > approach > between thousands of possibilities to split the pythagorean comma on > either side of the fifths circle. > > More important (if not sensational, sorry for the self-praise) is my > finding of the beat symmetries (or symmetric interfenrence phenomene) > inherent in only this equal temperament four years ago, cancelling out > the beats in octave and fifths combinations and thus turning a > tempered > tuning into pure tuning when playing chords. And this the proof why > this > tempermant is superior to any other. > > > regards, > > Bernhard Stopper > > > Richard Brekne schrieb: > > Hi Jason. To take your thought a step further, The guy who first > put > > me on the trail of the P-12ths idea showed me a series of test > > intervals. A major third, major sixth, octave 10th and double octave > > 10th. For tuning C6 for example, the relevant notes would be > Ab3, C4, > > F4, C5, and C6, with the Ab3 being the control note the whole > way. > The Third should be slowest, but just slightly slower then > the 10th. > > The 6th should be fastest, again by a very slight amount, and the > note > > you are tuning... the double 10th should be just inbetween the > 6th and > > the other two. This makes the 12th below C6 just very slightly off > > pure. Just got me thinking back then that it would be easy to use > > Tunelab to do this directly > > > > David Anderson using the clean fourths this way moves in a very > > similar direction. > > > > Cheers > > RicB > > > > > > > > Yes. As I think about it, I recall that David Andersen puts > great > > emphasis > > on the fourths, especially on the way down through the tenor. > Now > > fourths do > > happen to have the coincident partial that is a P12 from the > upper > > note. So > > in a manner of hearing, David is emphasizing P12 in his own > way. Hmm. > > > > Jason > > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC