<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Well David... grin.. I actually never said there was any such difference.
Having newly embarked on this particular direction on our common journey
into the world of piano acoustics... I am not sure I am the one to directly
answer your question, but I imagine any answer would have to include perspectives.
<p>On the one hand, due to the basic imperfectness of scales, strings,
etc.. no "ideal" for a temperament can exist in any perfect sense. We can
only have the "ideal" and our attempt to employ this ideal on any given
piano.
<p>On the other hand, there is the "spirit" of the ideal, which more or
less takes into account the fact that the ideal cant exist in real day
to day tuning. It is indeed this "spirit" or essence tuners work with daily.
And in that work, the best tuners can do amazing things to approximate
the ideal.
<p>As I said in my last post, I am just now, after nigh 25 years of tuning
just beginning to realize the possibilities in this regard, and the reason
for this is that it is only now I have taken the time to start <i>really</i>
looking hard at partials and inharmonicity and what these imply for our
work. A strong working knowledge of these issues is indeed a powerful tool
to carry in your minds tool box.. grin..
<p>Richard Brekne
<br>I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F.
<br>Bergen, Norway
<p>David ilvedson wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>If there isn't really equal temperment what about
the other
<br>temperments? Is there more leeway in tuning a Victorian and
<br>still calling it a Victorian? Why would HT's be any different
in
<br>that fashion that ET?
<p>David I.
<p>Date sent:
Mon, 06 Dec 1999 22:24:01 +0100
<br>From:
Richard Brekne <richardb@c2i.net>
<br>To:
pianotech@ptg.org
<br>Subject:
Re: Tuning Acrosonics
<br>Send reply to:
pianotech@ptg.org
<p>>
<br>>
<br>> Billbrpt@AOL.COM wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > In a message dated 12/5/99 8:19:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
<br>> > kswafford@earthlink.net (Kent Swafford) writes:
<br>> >
<br>> > << My personal preference when dealing with a
<br>> > large difference in inharmonicity at the tenor break is to
give up on
<br>> > smooth beat rates in the 3rds in favor of smooth beat rates
in the 4ths,
<br>> > 5ths, and octaves. >>
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>> Hmmm.. An interesting thread really... Actually I'd like to point
out that in a
<br>> sense the whole point is really that there is no such thing as ET
at all. At very
<br>> best one can equally space only one and the same one partial for
every string on
<br>> the piano. This is illustrated by the fact that a perfectly equal
spaceing of say
<br>> the 4th partial for all 88 notes, is no guarantee that any other
partial will be
<br>> equally spaced. In fact it is more like a guarantee that all other
partials will
<br>> be unevenly spaced. Such an perfectly even spaceing of the 4th partial
then would
<br>> automatically lead to some degree of uneven thirds, fourths, fiths,,
all intervals
<br>> for that matter. So we are left to some degree with a comprimise
situation.
<br>>
<br>> One can force a pretty even progression of major thirds... or one
can go with 4ths
<br>> and 5ths. In good pianos you can get both to work out quite nicely.
Which one you
<br>> choose in a challanging piano is in the end a matter of taste...
within certain
<br>> rather vaguely defined parameters of acceptability.
<br>>
<br>> Add different stretchs into the equation and the "unequalness" of
all partials and
<br>> coincidents outside of the present control or determinant set, can
become quite
<br>> significant if you want to get picky enough to measure it all out.
<br>>
<br>> Jim Coleman got me started on this buisness with Baldersins book
about six months
<br>> ago. We use octave types, 5th types and other types all the time
without even
<br>> knowing it. In fact I am convince that most aural tuners dont really
know
<br>> (conciously and easy to fetch from the back of the mind) much about
these "types"
<br>> formally at all. I am also convinced that the more familiar one is
with them, (on
<br>> a very concious and active level) the more powerful a tuning tool
it becomes. I
<br>> find myself more and more being able to sit down and quickly discern
another
<br>> tuners style because of an accute and increasing awareness of these
types. In the
<br>> process I have begun to think less of different tuning styles and
stretches as
<br>> right or wrong.. rather as one or another set of priorities from
the tuner. Its
<br>> actually quite facinating.
<br>>
<br>> Richard Brekne
<br>> I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F.
<br>> Bergen, Norway
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<br>>
<p>David Ilvedson, RPT
<br>Pacifica, CA
<br>ilvey@jps.net</blockquote>
</html>