<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: A different temperament / tuning approach</TITLE> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff background=""> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM>Jason Kanter:  <FONT size=1>2. In the bass, other partials often sound louder -- for example, I often concentrate aurally on the fifth partial because it sings louder to me and therefore I presume to the listener. So I wonder whether you might switch to the fourth or fifth partial when you descend into the wound strings. TuneLab Pro defaults to the 6th partial in the bass, but that seems arbitrary.</FONT></EM> <BR><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Many of the lower strings to me have a overabundance of "dominant" sounding partials (3, 6, 12); the majority of the time the first and second partials are not audible (i.e., they are not physically present). In general I feel that one should match-up the strongest sounding partials, but in this case, that reinforces something other than the family of fundamental partials. I am very uncomfortable with tuning partials that do not belong to the fundamental family. But if the other partials are much stronger, as is most often the case, what is more clearly heard should have a stronger preference of intonation.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The 6th partial in the bass is not really arbitrary, it is often one of the strongest 'clear' partials. </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV> <DIV><BR>Bradley M. Snook<BR><BR></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>