<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" link="#0000EE" vlink="#551A8B" alink="#FF0000">
<p>Roger Jolly wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Hi Richard,
<br>
The cat is now amidst the pigeons.
<br>Since you have RCT here is a little experiment for you.
<br>Set a temperament aurally to your complete satisfaction, then measure
each note with RCT, note the results.
<br>Next detune and retune with RCT alone for full blush on every string.
<br>Next go into PAZ mode and sample every string for harmonic content,
being very careful to use the same force of blow with each note. Tabulate
the results. you will note that any small tuning errors will coincide with
variations in the partial ladders.
<br>Now reset the temperaments with <i>ppp</i> blows and then with <i>fff
blows. </i>Repeat the tabulation process.
<br>You will find less mud, more light, then scratch your head. Heck my
fingers are full of splinters. (grin)
<br>Roger
<br>
<br> </blockquote>
This sounds interesting... will give it a wing this week and get back to
you..
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>
<br>
<p>>My "question" is then, (given your statements about inharmonicity,
strength of
<br>>partials, and how these change under conditions such as those voiceing
can
<br>>present) Which ones of these two methods is really the most dependable,
or shall
<br>>I say will result in the most "correct" tuning ? (I assume here that
both RCT and
<br>>Tune Lab are equals when it comes to measuring accuracy) If you have
an opinion
<br>>on this, I would also like to hear (as in depth as you can get inspired
enough to
<br>>write.. grin) your reasoning.
<br>>
<br>>Thanks..</blockquote>
<p><br>Was wondering a bit about this business tho.. If you need the whole
posting to answer I can re-send it. Basically using Tune-lab as one does
the ear as opposed to RCT's calculated scales.
<br>
<p>Richard Brekne
<br>I.C.P.T.G. N.P.T.F.
<br>Bergen, Norway
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>