<HTML>In a message dated 10/4/01 2:33:34 PM Central Daylight Time, A440A@AOL.COM writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">As a precedent describing the value of simplification, Thomas Young, after positing the directions for achieving the idealized form of well-temperament, stated that almost the same effect could be achieved by taking two strings of fifths, one in which all were pure, and going the other way around the circle, 6 of them that were equally impure.  According to Jorgensen, he was concerned, in 1800, that tuners wouldn't use a temperament that was too difficult to produce.   I think the same is true today, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.   </BLOCKQUOTE> The EBVT is *very* easy to tune, easier really than the Thomas Young.  The problem is that modern day techs have been scared away from anything that isn't what they had originally learned (which is *much more difficult*) and they have been offered the seemingly easy way out, the tune-by-numbers-with-no-understanding-approach and been lured by it. My method tunes the piano to itself, incorporating any and all of its scaling quirks.  The tune by number method is anybody's guess, especially when the 7th octave calculation is overruled by an arbitrary amount pulled from thin air in a by-guess-by-gosh, I-think-that-sounds-better experiment. My system is proven and practiced and will have been in use a full 10 years as my standard way of tuning the modern piano by the time of the 2002 Convention.  I'm not discounting the idea that the FAC program could be used and modified to produce the same results but that would be an inefficient way of accomplishing the same thing in a much simpler and surer way. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin</HTML>