Hear, hear.<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/26/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Richard Brekne</b> <<a href="mailto:ricb@pianostemmer.no">ricb@pianostemmer.no</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Bernard<br><br>You seem like a nice fellow, and we have hashed this through before. I<br>go out of my way to credit you for the work you did in the 70's.. or
<br>whenever it was, since you first brought my attention to it. You no<br>doubt were influenced by people in your career and something stimulated<br>you to thinking along these lines... just like happened to me. I<br>actually do resent greatly your insistence that I am in so many words a
<br>fake and a phony in this matter. The fact is that the major 6th and<br>double 10th comparisons I ran into some years back do not add up to a<br>perfect 12th tuning. They just happen to compare the 3:1 coincident.<br>
They (these tests) were brought into the picture as just one other test<br>for helping one get octaves. No one mentioned anything to me at any<br>point about tuning straight out from a 12ths perspective instead of an<br>Octave.
<br><br>Now this is the deal Bernard... through history many folks have thought<br>up things all on their own, made developments all on their own, without<br>knowing of others works before, after, parallel ... whatever. Happens
<br>all the time. Get used to it. In this case.. I have time and time again<br>since you first popped up claiming prior whatevers on this idea<br>acknowledged that you were before me. I have never tried to take credit<br>
for being the first guy to ever come up with this idea... quite the<br>opposite... In fact I have insisted that it is quite likely the idea<br>precedes you as well. In fact I dont give a hoot about any of this kind<br>of thing.
<br><br>I do on the other hand take harm at someone insinuating time and time<br>again that I purposefully mislead people into thinking that the P-12<br>tuning idea that I came up with and executed on Tunelab was my own. It
<br>was, and all your nasty insinuations to the contrary will not change<br>that. I had no idea of what your work, and for your information Andre<br>was not the first person, nor the last for that matter to <<introduce>>
<br>me to these tests. Not by a long shot. The only real coincidence any of<br>this has with Andre is that I had developed sufficiently in my own right<br>to add a couple 2 and 2's together and think about what would happen if
<br>you just plain used Tunelab to enforce P-12ths strictly and ignore any<br>and all other priorities. Nor did anyone give me any hint at all about<br>looking at the 9th root of 3. It wasnt a quantum leap to make or<br>
anything mind you... since using the 12th root of 2 do divide an octave<br>into even bits had been around for ages... when one first decides to<br>look at 12ths... its a rather reasonable step to take. Yep... that<br>piece of <<brilliance>> was also all my own...despite it obviously
<br>having been done elsewhere in the world unbeknownst to me previously.<br><br>As for the rest of what you claim about Andre and Arnold, I think its<br>in kind of poor taste to publicly accuse people of what you do below
<br>behind their backs as it were. I would point out tho your version of<br><<history>> clearly admits a prior knowledge to your own of the basic<br>idea of using the 3:1 coincident as a tuning priority. I would also
<br>underline that the first instance I ever ran into of P 12 ths thinking<br>was a PTG article in the early 80's or late 70's as I remember. At the<br>time I just read it with interest and dismissed the thought. I never to
<br>this day have seen your own article... and since I had no contact at all<br>with Euro Piano prior to 1996 it is not likely that I would have either.<br><br>Now... I'd appreciate an apology from you on the matter. I do not, nor
<br>do Andre and Arnold, whom are fine, respectable, and honest technicians,<br>deserve these kinds of remarks. Nor do you have any reason whatsoever<br>to feel threatened. Nobody at all has taken issue with your work. In
<br>fact... In my first response along these lines just yesterday I paid<br>deference to that and mentioned you by name.<br><br>Cordially<br>Richard Brekne<br><br><br> Ric,<br><br> The guy who put you into the trail to P12 you was André Oorebek from
<br> Amsterdam (you figured out in another post) and "a rather small article<br> i found about in the seventies" (your own words, you still have to<br>find it)<br><br> Both indicates and proofs that it was not yourself who pushed you up
<br> into the thing. In practice, the "other guy" already did so. Now for the<br> theory: Arnold Duin from Amsterdam, a former companion of André Oorebek,<br> told me at a Mensurix workshop i hold in Amsterdam a few years ago at
<br> their convention that they learned the major<br> sixth-doubleoctavemajorthird test from their old teacher who was not<br> firm with any theory about tuning, but a good tuner. They tried to<br> convince him, that it is not correct to do so from tuning theory. Some
<br> years later, after my publication in euro-piano, they began to adapt to<br> the P12. The article you mentioned was probably mine (the initial<br> publication of the pure twelfth temperement or "Stopper-Tuning" in
<br> euro-piano 1988) So your finding was indirectly (via Andre) and probably<br> directly (the article) initiated by my work about the matter. I really<br> hate to offend other people, but you do so to me a little by continously
<br> claiming independent authorship on the theoretical matter in your posts.<br><br> It was always my intention with the P12 temperament to get the tuning<br> theory compatible with what the best aural tuners tend to do, while the
<br> standard 12th root of two tempermant theory is not so. Mathematically<br> the 19th root of three temperament is on a first look only one approach<br> between thousands of possibilities to split the pythagorean comma on
<br> either side of the fifths circle.<br><br> More important (if not sensational, sorry for the self-praise) is my<br> finding of the beat symmetries (or symmetric interfenrence phenomene)<br> inherent in only this equal temperament four years ago, cancelling out
<br> the beats in octave and fifths combinations and thus turning a tempered<br> tuning into pure tuning when playing chords. And this the proof why this<br> tempermant is superior to any other.<br><br><br> regards,
<br><br> Bernhard Stopper<br><br><br> Richard Brekne schrieb:<br> > Hi Jason. To take your thought a step further, The guy who first put<br> > me on the trail of the P-12ths idea showed me a series of test<br>
> intervals. A major third, major sixth, octave 10th and double octave<br> > 10th. For tuning C6 for example, the relevant notes would be Ab3, C4,<br> > F4, C5, and C6, with the Ab3 being the control note the whole way.
<br> > The Third should be slowest, but just slightly slower then the 10th.<br> > The 6th should be fastest, again by a very slight amount, and the note<br> > you are tuning... the double 10th should be just inbetween the 6th and
<br> > the other two. This makes the 12th below C6 just very slightly off<br> > pure. Just got me thinking back then that it would be easy to use<br> > Tunelab to do this directly<br> ><br> > David Anderson using the clean fourths this way moves in a very
<br> > similar direction.<br> ><br> > Cheers<br> > RicB<br> ><br> ><br> ><br> > Yes. As I think about it, I recall that David Andersen puts great<br> > emphasis<br> > on the fourths, especially on the way down through the tenor. Now
<br> > fourths do<br> > happen to have the coincident partial that is a P12 from the upper<br> > note. So<br> > in a manner of hearing, David is emphasizing P12 in his own<br>way. Hmm.<br>
><br> > Jason<br> ><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || |||<br> jason's cell 425 830 1561