<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> SidewaysWell1713@aol.com wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>List, I got this testimonial this morning from a scientist who had discovered my webpage.  As it says in my website, I've been tuning my octaves this way for about 20 years.  I clearly remember Jim Coleman rushing up to me after the recital at the Convention in 1993 saying, "You've done something with the octaves.  I don't know what it is but I like it!".  From what Richard Brekne has written recently, I believe he is on to the same idea. Not everyone gets it though.  None of the ETD stretch programs can tune the octaves this way.</blockquote> In this you are correct me thinks... but then ETD's are stretch octaves directly, and the stretch of other intervals becomes dependant upon this... so much so that I wonder if anyone has ever even thought about doing things the other way around. Funny too when you come to think of it... the stretched tuning curve results in basically no two octaves having the same set of beat rates for each relavant type, nor the same compound beat rate for that matter. The distance between an octave has always been troublesome anyways. The desire for a perfect 5th gets like really in the way of any and all shemes for spliting it up when it comes down to it.... so why not split the distance between a perfect 12th up into 19 evenly spaced semitones instead ?, Following this scheme up and down tuning by 12th types instead of octave types yeilds a slightly different octave curve (if you first want to view a tuning from the perspective of octaves) in the treble, with a more tense stretch in the C5 - G6 range, and much reduced stretch for the higher notes.  The net difference from traditional octave priority stretch is not really very much, but in the bargain you get perfect 12ths... which seems to contribute a bit to higher note sustain.... sort of in the sense of the duplex idea me thinks. In any case there is an aural effect created by tuning this way that you dont get from tradition tuning curves, and its quite pleasing to the ear. In the bass.. I just look at both the 3:1 12th, and 9:3 12th, and stretch the bass somewhere in between so as to insure that the octaves are at least 6:3 or wider. Typically this results in an A1-E2 9:3 12th type that beats at about 3 bps narrow, while the 3:1 is about 0.5 bps wide.   <blockquote TYPE=CITE>There is one individual out there who can't bear to see his name associated with his own words.  According to him, this way of tuning octaves "doesn't make sense at all".  He is actively trying to disallow me from quoting him by force.  I think it would be a lot easier if he just admitted that he might not know eberything there is to know.  </blockquote> Sigh... I really do wish you would get over this nonsense Bill. I mean even if you are 1000 percent correct... (and I am not saying you are)... you demean yourself so with this tact. Its really quite embarrassing to witness. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Then I became fascinated by the idea to use the 5th as a pure interval instead of the octave. I just fumbled a bit with this last week. However, the octaves take a beating, so I thought of maybe a compromise, then I stumbled upon your web site -> the 'ear-opener'!! I</blockquote> Seems like a good path to walk down.... so far I havent found any bunnies hopping around on it yet...  I have spotted a few funny coloured mushrooms tho :) RicB -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>  </html>