<HTML>In a message dated 9/13/02 7:55:12 AM Central Daylight Time, mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">What is this continual diatribe? Why don't you worry more about the lies of politicians who make this world miserable for mankind? Geeezzzz, get a life! Is your world really that small? </BLOCKQUOTE> Let's see, just about anything I might say is a diatribe but when Ed Foote says, "What this displays is an appalling ignorance of psycho-acoustics.  The ear hears beating as a function of frequency, but the perception follows a logarithmic scale, not the linear one,  ie,  in a given octave, an F-A beating at 7 bps will be heard as tempered equally to the above A-C# beating at 9 bps.  If the F-A and A-C# both beat at the same speed, the A-C# will sound more consonant in the triad, regardless of the size of fifth involved (try it yourself).  By the same measure, in a Young temperament, the C-E(4) sounds far more consonant than the A-C# under it or above it.     If scale position determined the perceived amount of dissonance, then in ET, F-A, tempered the same amount, would be far more dissonant than the C-E below because it is "higher" and beats faster.  That is simply not true.   According to the writings collected by Rita Steblin, Emaj was not considered the most "expressive" key in the historical temperaments, that was reserved for B, C#, F# and sometimes Ab, all keys that the ebvt renders in ET size.         I insist on nothing.  What I have offered is my idea of a rational approach to investigating ALL the temperaments. A reasonable and workable way for comparing all the historical permutations that our instrument has been subjected to.  I have done this with two approaches:  Jorgensen's "tuning to taste" method for aural tuners, and the use of offsets for the ETD users.   Response from the field has been quite encouraging.  A growing number of professional musicians and venues are finding these approaches to be musically superior and I expect this to continue.    In his previous writings on this list, Mr. Bremmer's offers that his own creation (the "sideways well") is the superior way, though nobody but himself can tune that way, that no one tunes a true ET(fraudulently selling *reverse well* in its stead), and everybody is both out of step and in conspiracy. <sigh> ", it isn't? And Ed Foote's attempt at discrediting the work I've been doing for 10 years by publishing false information is answered by a diatribe which doesn't even come close in outrageous emotion to anything I have ever written.  It is capped off by an endorsement, "the original, lucid and rational views expressed by Ed Foote whether I agree with him or not, and, in general, I do,  and want to express my thanks to him for setting the record straight and for his courage for doing so..." Yes, I have a life.  I've been developing a new temperament and octave stretching method for the past 10 years and am currently working on a final set of correction figures that will work.  I also have a very active website to which I am making contributions and adding links from parties who support the work I do. I've had to put that on hold for a while though, while I compile a series of figures which disprove Ed Foote's reckless diatribe. Today, I have another set of figures to add to that list and an answer for your "too many uprights" diatribe.  I tuned this morning a 100 year old Emerson upright made in Boston.  It has been in that family now for 4 generations. The family knows its entire history.  Its owners belong to a group of people who populated this area in the late 19th Century.  Many of these people bought the fine quality pianos built around the turn of the 20th Century. Today, this piano is in remarkably well preserved condition.  Even its original bridle straps are still intact.  It is very well and beautifully designed.  The bass strings are a combination of copper and iron, something more recent manufacturers discontinued.  But Ed Foote would call this, "JUNK".  I'd like to see him tell the nice lady with her 5th generation owner-to-be toddler child there whom she was caring for and the elementary school aged daughter who takes lessons on it that it is nothing but JUNK.  I'd like to see you tell her that it is a "PSO", do substandard work because you feel it is beneath your dignity, as you seem to always say about most any piano. I tuned it by ear and measured the intervals Ed Foote says are "imbalanced" in the EBVT and once again, found this not to be true: B2-D#3: 16.7  Db3-F3: 16.5  E3-G#3: 16.3  F#3-A#3: 17.0  Ab3-C4: 16.4 In addition to my very busy piano tuning schedule, of which the next appointment is a pro bono, volunteer tuning for a charity, again on a piano that people use with great frequency for live music performances but which you would call a "PSO" and Ed Foote would call, "JUNK", I sing in two community choruses, a folk music band and am awaiting the decision on an audition to be the Tenor soloist in an oratorio to be performed in November.  I have 2 piano tuning apprentices who are NOT being taught what Ed Foote teaches.  I also have a very active romantic life that really keeps me going. Now, which politicians are those who are making life miserable for mankind?  I know of a couple of dictators who are and who are going to be dealt with in short order but that is off topic for this list. What would you have me change about my life other than seeing to it that Ed Foote recant the false information he published on Pianotech? "Sideways Well":  the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. 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>