<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=us-ascii"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">  <title>Who says E.T. is the best way to solve octave divisions?</title> <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=purple> <div class=Section1> Okay, Jon Page, Ed Foote and others routinely tune in WT without being asked to or telling their customers that is what they are doing. If they can, I guess I can as well, though it definitely moves me out of my comfort zone. I’ve experimented enough to satisfy myself that I like the sound. Good music is about tension and release. The WT scales seem to accentuate the tension/release adding very nice color to the music.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Frankly, being out of the concert circuit, 99+% of my customers will have no notice of the difference. One thing that concerns me is other tuners coming behind my work and being critical of the temperament I set, judging it against an ET standard, not realizing I have deliberately set a WT. Recently a very well respected older tech came behind one of my ET tunings of a Steinway L and was very complimentary to the owner. That was important to me. If I had set a WT however I doubt that he would have been so kind. Anybody have any ideas on how to head this off? I’ve thought of putting in a sticker with some kind of disclaimer stating that it is a WT scale inside the piano. I’ve also considered notifying all the area techs that this is what I am currently doing so they’ll know. Does anyone else worry about this?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Colman 11 has been recommended by many as a good middle of the road WT. Broadwoods Best is another. Below is a list of all the historical temperaments offered on my PRCT and Coleman 10 or 11 do not seem to be represented. There is a couple of different Broadwood Best and one Broadwood usual.  What I have been using is the W24 1885 Ellis tuner #4 Broadwood Best. There are so many on this list I really don’t have time to go through and try them all and compare them. That would take forever. In the meantime I have a family to feed. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> What I am hoping is that some of the more experienced WT tuners can tell me (and others) what would be good tunings from the list to use, maybe ranking them on a scale from mild to more radical and also tell me what ones would be best to avoid altogether. Or maybe you can steer me to another resource so I can decipher what they are. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> I’m also curious as to what the different letter/number combinations mean. The W’s perhaps are Well Tempered, the M’s maybe meantone? <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> W01 1700 Early 18th Century<o:p></o:p> W02 1731 Peter Prelleur<o:p></o:p> W03 1746 William Trans’ur<o:p></o:p> W04 1768 Theoretical J.-J. Rousseau<o:p></o:p> W05 1768 Equal Beating J.-J. Rousseau<o:p></o:p> W06 1700 George Frederick Handel<o:p></o:p> W07 1781 Francesco Antonio Vallotti<o:p></o:p> W08 1752 Jean-Le Rond D’Alembert<o:p></o:p> W09 1785 Equal-beating John Preston<o:p></o:p> W10 1785 Theoretical John Preston<o:p></o:p> W11 1799 Vallotti-Young<o:p></o:p> W12 1799 Representative 18th Century<o:p></o:p> W13 1771 Johann Philipp Kimberger<o:p></o:p> W14 1806 Theoretical Charles Stanhope<o:p></o:p> W15 1806 Equal-beating Chas. Stanhope<o:p></o:p> W16 1808 Theoretical Prinz<o:p></o:p> W17 1808 Equal-beating Prinz<o:p></o:p> W18 1832 Jean Jousse<o:p></o:p> W19 1840 Tuner’s Guide #1<o:p></o:p> W20 1840 Tuner’s Guide #2<o:p></o:p> W21 1840 Tuner’s Guide #3<o:p></o:p> W22 1885 Representative Victorian Moon<o:p></o:p> W23 1885 Ellis tuner #2 Broadwood Usual<o:p></o:p> W24 1885 Ellis tuner #4 Broadwood Best<o:p></o:p> R01 1523 Pietro Aaron (1/4 syntonic)<o:p></o:p> R02 1707 Gottfried Keller 1/5 ditonic<o:p></o:p> R04 1749 Robert Smith (50 tones)<o:p></o:p> R05 1770 John Holden 1/5 syntonic 1&2<o:p></o:p> R06 1809 John Marsh (4/15 syntonic)<o:p></o:p> R07 1808 William Hawkes (1/6 Mercator)<o:p></o:p> R08 1558 Gioseffo Zarlino 2/7 syntonic<o:p></o:p> M09 1600 17th Century<o:p></o:p> M10 1752 Jean-Le Rond D’Alembert<o:p></o:p> M11 1797 1797 1/5 syntonic comma<o:p></o:p> M12 1798 William Hawkes<o:p></o:p> M13 1807 Improved William Hawkes<o:p></o:p> M14 1818 Alexander Metcalf Fisher<o:p></o:p> Q01 1887 Mark Wicks<o:p></o:p> Q02 1811 A. <st1:place w:st="on">Merrick</st1:place><o:p></o:p> Q03 1819 Johann C. G. Graupner<o:p></o:p> Q04 1829 Viennese (Hummel)<o:p></o:p> Q05 1832 Jean Jousse<o:p></o:p> Q06 1840 Tuner’s Guide (Marsh Plan)<o:p></o:p> Q07 1840 Tuner’s Guide (Becket Plan)<o:p></o:p> Q08 1840 Factory Tuners of 1840<o:p></o:p> Q09 1875 Alexander John Ellis in 1875<o:p></o:p> Q10 1885 Ellis tuner #5 Broadwood Best<o:p></o:p> Q11 1885 Alexander John Ellis in 1885<o:p></o:p> Q12 1906 Howard Willet Pyle<o:p></o:p> P01 1373 14th Century<o:p></o:p> P02 1518 Hernricus Grammateus<o:p></o:p> P03 1808 Anton Bemetzrieder<o:p></o:p> P04 1843 Augustus De Morgan<o:p></o:p> P05 1732 Johann George Neidhardt<o:p></o:p> P06 1858 Neidhardy-Marpurg-De Morgan<o:p></o:p> P07 1895 Charles E. <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moscow</st1:place></st1:City><o:p></o:p> W25 2003 Keller<o:p></o:p> M15 1998 MayHawk<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Many thanks,<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 Jon Page Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:44 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Who says E.T. is the best way to solve octave divisions?<o:p></o:p> </div> <o:p> </o:p> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> Although there is much to be said for playing "period" music on "period" instruments, tuned to "period" temperaments, one can legitimately tune a modern instrument to an early temperament, and recapture much of the composers original intent for his music.<o:p></o:p> </blockquote> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> I've been tuning well temperaments for years, using Coleman 11 as a default<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> unless specifically requested. One piano teacher (Julliard grad.) says that she<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> doesn't have to try to inject expression into the music because it was written in.<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> <o:p> </o:p> </div> <div> At a concert yesterday the pianist didn't notice non-ET only that the piano sounded great,<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> plus it had drifted up to 443 from 441 in August (evenly I might add).<o:p></o:p> </div> <div> Regards, Jon Page<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> </body> </html>