<HTML>In a message dated 5/9/02 10:41:41 AM Central Daylight Time,   drwoodwind@hotmail.com (Ron Koval) writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">At least for me, it would simplify the puzzle if you could list one complete octave (F3-F4) using the same partial for the entire octave.  F-F is good, because that would be a pure 5th, giving an untempered octave, which allows for the octave stretch information when calculating for the offsets. </BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I can't really do that.  The info I provided is directly from my SAT.  I always program the SAT to have the 3rd, 4th and 5th octaves read on octave 5.  This means that Octave 3 will be read on the 4th partial, Octave 4 on the 2nd partial and Octave 5 on the fundamental.  I have my reasons for doing it this way but unfortunately, it is not compatible with the FAC program's partial selection. The amount of stretch I put in the octave is deliberately not the same from note to note.  It depends on how much tempering there is in the corresponding 5th.  That is the main reason for the futility behind trying to find the usual correction figures for the EBVT.  I simply don't tune my octaves according to a smooth curve calculation. I wasted about 1/2 hour yesterday fooling around with this and got nowhere (as usual).  I did notice however that the piano, tuned the way I do, had very small differences sharp, flat or about the same from the calculated FAC program.  These small differences allow my tuning to be acceptable by itself and to be compatible with other instruments, even fixed pitch instruments in ET.  It is a good example of how very small deviations can and do make a difference when they are applied purposefully rather than being errors made at random. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> </HTML>