<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PostalCode"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"/> <o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"/>  <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue> <div class=Section1> This kind of bickering needs to go off list, not be applauded.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> Dean<o:p></o:p> <u1:PersonName u2:st="on">Dean May</u1:PersonName>             cell 812.239.3359 <o:p></o:p> PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272 <o:p></o:p> <u1:place u2:st="on"><u1:City u2:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Terre Haute</st1:City></u1:City> <u1:State u2:st="on"><st1:State w:st="on">IN</u1:State></st1:State>  <u1:PostalCode u2:st="on"><st1:PostalCode w:st="on">47802</u1:PostalCode></st1:PostalCode></st1:place></u1:place><o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </div> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jason Kanter Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:11 PM To: Pianotech List Subject: Re: back from K.C. David A / Stopper /P12 authorship<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> Hear, hear.<o:p></o:p> <div> On 6/26/07, Richard Brekne <<a href="mailto:ricb@pianostemmer.no">ricb@pianostemmer.no</a>> wrote: <o:p></o:p> 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 Andr� Oorebek from    <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:City> (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: <st1:City w:st="on">Arnold</st1:City> Duin from <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:City>, a former companion of Andr� Oorebek,    told me at a Mensurix workshop i hold in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Amsterdam</st1:place></st1:City> 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    ><o:p></o:p> </div> -- |  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||  ||  |||          jason's cell 425 830 1561 <o:p></o:p> </div> </body> </html>