<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 10/4/01 2:36:41 PM Central Daylight Time, jformsma@dixie-net.com (John M. Formsma) writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Robert and Bill B.,
<BR>
<BR>Having your offsets (below my post) and Bill B.'s insistence that they won't
<BR>work, I tried a temperament on a Steinway M today. I might not do EBVT
<BR>correctly, as it seems to be rather elusive, but I have followed his written
<BR>directions closely for some months and have a good working idea of the
<BR>temperament as he wrote it. From your offsets, given my understanding of
<BR>EBVT with the knowledge that Bill B. has not heard or sanctioned my
<BR>rendition, the temperament did not sound like EBVT. It seemed close, but the
<BR>tempered 5ths and 4ths were beating too fast.
<BR>
<BR>So, I tuned the EBVT F3-F4 octave and got the following offsets. The FAC
<BR>tuning which was offset had the following numbers: F 8.5; A 8.2; C 9.2. I
<BR>used the A4 from the FAC tuning, then tuned the rest aurally. Here are the
<BR>offsets after measuring:
<BR>
<BR>F3 -0.3
<BR>F#3 -1.8
<BR>G3 +0.9
<BR>G#3 +1.0
<BR>A3 -1.9
<BR>A#3 -1.5
<BR>B3 -0.9
<BR>C4 +1.5
<BR>C#4 -1.7
<BR>D4 -1.7
<BR>D#4 -0.7
<BR>E4 -2.8
<BR>F4 -0.5
<BR>
<BR>Another way I measured was to turn the SAT II on and measure the notes in
<BR>the tune mode. I don't know if that will be helpful, but here are the
<BR>measurements:
<BR>
<BR>F3 -1.0
<BR>F#3 -3.2
<BR>G3 -0.5
<BR>G#3 -0.4
<BR>A3 -1.0
<BR>A#3 -2.0
<BR>B3 -3.0
<BR>C4 +2.1
<BR>C#4 -1.2
<BR>D4 -0.3
<BR>D#4 -1.2
<BR>E4 -2.3
<BR>F4 +0.8
<BR>F#4 -1.0
<BR>G4 +1.9
<BR>G#4 +3.0
<BR>A4 0.0
<BR>
<BR>Bill B., could you please use these offsets and the other measurements on a
<BR>Steinway M to see if this is even close? Maybe then we could get closer to
<BR>having more correct offsets.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>John,
<BR>
<BR>A cursory look at your figures says to me that you are correct in every sense. Perhaps your figures can be compared to Ron Koval's who I think may have also come up with figures that work better.
<BR>
<BR>I still don't see the value in using the FAC program however, because it will never produce the same kind of octave arrangement that I do. Your recent description of how you visualize octaves works well with my method. The FAC program is nothing more than a guess which does not even attempt to make the same kind of compromise.
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Bill Bremmer RPT
<BR>Madison, Wisconsin</FONT></HTML>