<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: More EBVT Data</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <BLOCKQUOTE>On its surface this tuning looks a lot like the Handel Well. Th= ere is a slight imbalance in the G M3, which is larger than the D M3 but sho= uld be smaller. There are also significant imbalances in the series of m3s. = However, without the individual string offsets I can't calculate the beats (= at least, not without building a new spreadsheet for that purpose) -- so I c= an't determine how well this tuning seems to reflect the published Bremmer E= BVT Bearing Plan. I can say definitively that the figures Bill published on 9/1 for his own p= iano ("The True Properties of EBVT") also has imbalances -- the E = Major Third is larger than the B or F# M3s, the C M3 is larger than the G M3= -- but these are less than what I calculated straight from the bearing plan= . That tuning was obviously modified by ear during the process, as Bill cont= inually stresses is a critical piece of the process. However, the results do= not appear to follow the EBVT bearing plan. For example, Bill has stated that "F3A3, G3B3, G3E4, and C4E4 are all = to beat *exactly* the same, 6 beats per second" (and later he has state= d that this may be 5 per second); but on his own piano, if the offsets he pu= blished are correct, those beat rates would be as follows:  5.3,  = 4.5,  5.6, and  6.3 respectively. Not far off, but certainly not a= ll exactly the same. Bill also states categorically that F3C4, C4F4, F3Bb3, Bb3F4, F#3C#4, and G= #3C#4 must all be pure. On his own piano, if the offsets he published are co= rrect, the FC beats at 0.6 and F#C# beats at 0.3. Bill further states that major thirds on A and Bb must beat *exactly* the s= ame, about 9 per second; if his offsets are right, his piano has those beati= ng at 8.5 and 9.7 respectively. My conclusion here is not that this is a flawed temperament, but that the b= earing instructions are probably inaccurate (because the theory produces a m= ore imbalanced tuning than the actuals, which Bill has also published twice = now) ; and I suspect that the FAC reading of offsets on 9/1 is also probably= slightly inaccurate (because they calculate out to several significant diff= erences in interval size than he measured). I suspect that when Bill tunes a= "pure" fifth he is actually tuning something slightly contracted = (and the BbF slightly expanded). I suspect that the tuning tends to sound go= od because the M3s on C, G, D, and F are all sweeter than ET, and that when = he tunes the rest of the piano he compensates, adjusts, fixes to reduce the = imbalances, and that his method of tuning octaves is probably so sweet that = it alone makes the piano sing. </BLOCKQUOTE> || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| jason kanter * piano tuning * piano teaching bellevue, wa * 425 562 4127 * cell 425 831 1561 orcas island * 360 376 2799 || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| || ||| <BLOCKQUOTE>From: SidewaysWell1713@aol.com Reply-To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org> Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 15:03:40 EDT To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: More EBVT Data </BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>List, I believe I've made my point about Ed Foote's motivations for writing what = he did, so for the moment, I'll drop the moniker.  Yesterday, I tuned a= n interesting old upright which had been superbly rebuilt by the local unive= rsity staff.  It was a Grinnell Brothers full size upright from Detroit= . I chose this instrument to take readings because it does demonstrate a few = points I've always made.  Not every old upright is worthless and despit= e scaling irregularities that ETD programs may not handle well, they can som= etimes be quite useful and beautiful instruments.  This is one of those= . It has plain wire down to B2.  Although I would have chosen to rescale= it, this one was not and there are many other pianos built like this. &nbsp= ;The Yamaha G1 comes to mind.  Even the Steinway L has this problem. &n= bsp;Although many rebuilders do rescale Steinway L's (and O's which are esse= ntially alike), Steinway summarily dismisses any suggestions from the field = on how it could make its instruments better. So, tuning, whether aural or electronic, must cope with these.  We can= 't all say that we won't tune them because there wouldn't be many pianos lef= t to tune if we did.  I believe this is a prime example of the kind of = piano which would produce skewed and incorrect results by using an FAC progr= am with or without correction figures for another kind of temperament. &nbsp= ;I can't be sure about other ETD's since I have no experience with them. <BR= > It was tuned very, very carefully by ear and the results of the interval si= zes for Major 3rd's, 5ths and minor 3rds were carefully measured and recorde= d.  What the readings show is what I expected.  There are no imbal= ances within a narrow range near the F3-F4 octave but yes, one does have to = be very careful in tuning or there could easily be.  Once out of that n= arrow range however, the wildly varying inharmonicity causes what might be *= interpreted* as numerical imbalances. When I saw these, I checked very carefully again and again to see if I had = made any aural tuning errors but was satisfied with the way it sounded and l= et it stand.  The sizes of the intervals do not remain consistent from = octave to octave.  The combination of efforts to stretch the octaves an= d to compromise for inharmonicity cause this.  For this reason, I think= that computing the correction figures has to be limited to work done in the= F3-F4 range.  Otherwise, other factors will inevitably skew the result= s. I'm going to warn Ed Foote right here and now not to start saying anything = about this at all, such as "inconsistency" or anything else. &nbsp= ;I have been taking readings of interval sizes long before Ed Foote ever tri= ed to tune any HT's.  If he would take my suggestion and record the res= ults of his own work as he usually does it, he would find that each piano yi= elds its own, unique results which are to a point, unpredictable. Ed would like to have us all believe that simply dialing up a program and a= pplying correction figures to it would always yield a chart of uniform resul= ts where interval sizes always turn out to be predictably the same.  Th= is is not true. Ed Foote has never at any time had a kind word to say either to or about me= even though I have had many for him and his efforts.  When he calls my= tuning a "disaster", he gets called "Uncle Tom".  = When he says my tuning is "inconsistent, unauthentic and full of imbala= nces", I'll have my own sharp criticism of what he says and does. &nbsp= ;I take another approach to tuning.  Either strictly aural or by using = my SAT in the Direct Interval mode to create the exact kinds of intervals I = desire. While using the correction figures method is valid to a point, it doesn't a= llow the tuner to really know what is being done unless that person goes thr= ough the tuning and aurally verifies it.  Dr. Sanderson will be the fir= st to tell you this.  It only gets you close, it is a calculated approx= imation. I don't believe at all in teaching people they can have the experiences of = the different temperaments there are just by offering them some numbers to d= ial in.  Sure, there are always people who want to take that short cut = approach and who wouldn't know how to construct a temperament from scratch b= ut that's not me nor do I advocate it. What I completely and totally resent is the constant attempts to discredit = what I do in favor of that shortcut approach.  When that stops, I won't= have anything to complain about.  If Ed Foote wants to continue to pla= y his insult, defamation and discrediting game, I have bigger and better amm= unition than he does. Here are the Direct Interval results from B2-F4.  Note that the note B= 2 itself appears quite out of line.  It is one of those "oingo-boi= ngo", wolfish sounding strings where, particularly for the intervals of= the 5th and octave, two sets of irreconcilable coincident partials can be h= eard.  But this is the reality of tuning and the challenge.  I pre= fer to meet that challenge and find a solution, not dismiss it as being bene= ath my dignity and thus provide the customer with a poor representation of a= tuning. Ron Koval and Jason Kanter, do what you will with these figures. Note  M3rds  5ths  mi3rds B2    19.7    -2.4   -11.8 C3    9.3     -2.8    -10= .2 C#3  17.5    -0.3    -14.3 D3    9.1     -4.3    -14= .4 D#3  14.1    -5.3    -21.1 E3   14.4     -2.5    -12.5 <B= R> F3    10.5     0.0    -18= .1 F#3   17.2    0.0    -13.9 G3    9.9     -4.4    -19= .2 G#3  15.1    -0.5    -17.6 A3    12.8    -1.1    -10.7 &n= bsp;   A#3  12.2     0.4    -17.6 B3    15.0    -5.3    -16.3 <B= R> C4    7.6      -2.4   &nb= sp;-20.4 C#4  16.2     0.0    -16.0 D4    9.3      -0.7   &nb= sp;-15.4 D#4  15.7    -1.5    -22.2 E4    15.0    -0.4    -13.4 <B= R> F4     11.5    1.8    -18= .2 Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =- <http://www.billb= remmer.com/>   </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>