<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Tom,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Regarding various checks for unequal tunings, you'd use many of =
the same
ones. E.g., for the bass, m3-M6 for a 6:3 octave and M3-M10 =
for a 4:2.
Or, you can compare the double octave with an octave-fifth. If =
they beat
about the same, it will sound fine. In fact, I use the latter test with =
ET a lot
of the time. It's fast.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>There
are all kinds of tests for different octave sizes which would be =
the same
as in ET. I'd have to get my Big Red book out to give an example, but =
there are
tests for all octave sizes: 2:1, 4:2, 6:3, 8:4, 12:6, etc. If memory =
serves
correctly, these tests work regardless of temperament. We just get used =
to using
them a certain way when tuning ET.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Expanding upward from the temperament octave, you'll =
mostly tune
either 4:2 or 6:3 octaves depending on your preference. Same tests as in =
ET. The
major difference is that the intervals don't ascend evenly as in ET. For =
instance, you wouldn't use the ascending M-10ths as a test. I typically =
tune the
double octave to beat the same as the octave plus a fifth. E.g., C3-C5 =
beats
about the same a F3-C5.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>I had
the same kind of questions when I first began adding unequal =
temperaments to my
skill set. But, once you get out of the ET only mindset, it's =
really about
the same without the evenly ascending intervals. Tuning unequal =
temperaments
aurally helped me learn to tune ET better. When you learn what a truly =
just
interval sounds like instead of tuning everything "equally out of =
tune," it
all falls into place better. At least it did for me.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff =
size=2>I
didn't understand the "organic" reference either. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=62151204-03042004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2><BR>John Formsma</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> =
pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]<B>On Behalf Of</B>
Tvak@aol.com<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 02, 2004 9:05 =
PM<BR><B>To:</B>
pianotech@ptg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Non-ETs; more organic than
ET?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT =
face=Geneva
color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR>In a message dated =
4/2/04 6:16:44
PM, A440A@aol.com writes:<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
cite="" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT face=Geneva color=#000000 =
size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF">mild WT's stay "in tune" longer, and the =
customers
of<BR>mine that use them agree. These temperaments are already =
somewhat "organic",<BR>as opposed to the scientific and rigid
ET. <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT face=Geneva color=#000000 =
size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR><BR>"Organic?" In what manner could one =
possibly
perceive one temperament as more "organic" than another? You =
lost me
here! Unless you're referring to what's getting knee deep in =
this
discussion! (heheheh...)<BR><BR>Referring to ET as rigid =
and
scientific suggests to me the following: When you tune ET there =
are a
multitude of tests and reference notes you can use to ascertain =
whether you
have deviated from the ideal placement of each note. (Very
scientific...) With non-ETs there are fewer ways to check your
results. If I'm wrong about this, correct me, but perhaps one of =
the
reasons you feel ET is rigid and scientific is the fact that you can =
double
check every note up and down the keyboard and any note that is not =
rigidly
where it ought to be sticks out in the checks. The more =
"organic"
approach might be "sounds good, must be good/ no way to check it, =
so...there
it is". <BR><BR>My final check of my bass octaves, after having =
tuned
them to my ear and checking them with a 3/6 or 3/10 to ascertain that =
they are
where they should be, is to listen to descending M3rds, then M10ths, =
and
finally m7ths. This often brings to my attention an anomaly, =
whereby I
realize that I need to make an adjustment. Of course, these =
descending
parallel intervals only work in ET. How do you to check your =
bass
octaves? <BR><BR>I'm sure that there must be ways to check not =
only your
temperament, but your octaves with various non-ETs, but if there are, =
would
someone share them with me? Because, frankly I like the sound of =
a mild
non-ET but without more tools to check myself along the way, I =
wouldn't
attempt it aurally. (I've tried various temperaments with my
ETDs.)<BR><BR>BTW, as far as the original question goes, I agree that =
ET
tunings are more likely to sound in tune longer than their non-ET
counterparts. But that's assuming that the pianist is playing in =
keys
other than C and G all the time. <BR><BR>Tom =
Sivak<BR>Chicago</FONT><FONT
face=Geneva color=#000000 size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"></FONT>
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>