Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic [MMM] Tuning comparison, Elgar Enigma in 12tet, Pythagorean, meantone and 17tet.

Hi all,

Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled pianos I've tried up till now.
I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.

https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma

1: 12tet
2: Pythagorean
3: 1/4 comma meantone
4: 17tet

All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain errors).
The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
12tet fifths: 700 cents
Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
17tet fifths: 705.882 cents

I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone and 17tet versions.
12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet version as well.

Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still prefers meantone or 17tet.
If you do, let me know!

Kind regards,
Marcel

🔗Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>

I liked 12 and 1/4 meantone for that. It had prominent major thirds at important points that sound too wide in Pyth. 17edo just sounds weird for that.

just my 700¢.

caleb

________________________________
From: Marcel de Velde <marcel@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 9:16 AM
Subject: [MMM] Tuning comparison, Elgar Enigma in 12tet, Pythagorean, meantone and 17tet.

Hi all,

Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled
pianos I've tried up till now.
I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.

https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma

1: 12tet
2: Pythagorean
3: 1/4 comma meantone
4: 17tet

All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used
by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain
errors).
The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
12tet fifths: 700 cents
Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
17tet fifths: 705.882 cents

I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone
and 17tet versions.
12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear
the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet
version as well.

Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still
prefers meantone or 17tet.
If you do, let me know!

Kind regards,
Marcel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗James Fenn <thejamesfenn@...>

Hi Marcel,

I must admit I much prefer the 12tet version over pythag. The first part
with the minor triads sounds great in py but when the major harmonies
appear, the large major 3rds go against the grain to my ears and distorts
the character of the piece - I find them quite noticeable in this context.
My preferences go, from favourite to least: 12tet, 1/4 comma, pythag, 17et.

I have heard experiments where in a well-tempered tuning, a large major 3rd
in a triad can suit the style of the piece but I don't think it does in
this one.

Cheers,
James

On 6 March 2013 14:16, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
> It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled
> pianos I've tried up till now.
> I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.
>
> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma
>
> 1: 12tet
> 2: Pythagorean
> 3: 1/4 comma meantone
> 4: 17tet
>
> All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used
> by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain
> errors).
> The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
> 12tet fifths: 700 cents
> Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
> 1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
> 17tet fifths: 705.882 cents
>
> I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone
> and 17tet versions.
> 12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear
> the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet
> version as well.
>
> Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still
> prefers meantone or 17tet.
> If you do, let me know!
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcel
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗kraiggrady <kraiggrady@...>

George Secor has come up with some good temperaments that sound good to
my ear. often with giving each key a slightly different flavor.
I used this one which i was quite happy with although there was ones he
preferred which must be in the tuning list archives somewhere.
http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com.au/search/label/George%20Secor

On 7/03/13 1:56 AM, James Fenn wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
>
> I must admit I much prefer the 12tet version over pythag. The first part
> with the minor triads sounds great in py but when the major harmonies
> appear, the large major 3rds go against the grain to my ears and distorts
> the character of the piece - I find them quite noticeable in this context.
> My preferences go, from favourite to least: 12tet, 1/4 comma, pythag, 17et.
>
> I have heard experiments where in a well-tempered tuning, a large major 3rd
> in a triad can suit the style of the piece but I don't think it does in
> this one.
>
> Cheers,
> James
>
>
> On 6 March 2013 14:16, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
>> It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled
>> pianos I've tried up till now.
>> I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.
>>
>> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma
>>
>> 1: 12tet
>> 2: Pythagorean
>> 3: 1/4 comma meantone
>> 4: 17tet
>>
>> All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used
>> by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain
>> errors).
>> The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
>> 12tet fifths: 700 cents
>> Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
>> 1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
>> 17tet fifths: 705.882 cents
>>
>> I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone
>> and 17tet versions.
>> 12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear
>> the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet
>> version as well.
>>
>> Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still
>> prefers meantone or 17tet.
>> If you do, let me know!
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Marcel
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

--
signature file

/^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗nuorvala <jnylenius@...>

Hi,
expectedly, 17tet is quite unacceptable, and Pythagorean sounds bad in the major key sections of the piece but OK in the minor sectons. 12tet is the "neutral" tuning for this music, as it was probably composed with that in mind, but interestingly, this example shows how beautiful meantone can sound even in later tonal or modal music, if the harmonic language happens to fit it well.
From best to worst: meantone, 12tet, Pythagorean, 17tet.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
> It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled
> pianos I've tried up till now.
> I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.
>
> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma
>
> 1: 12tet
> 2: Pythagorean
> 3: 1/4 comma meantone
> 4: 17tet
>
> All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used
> by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain
> errors).
> The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
> 12tet fifths: 700 cents
> Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
> 1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
> 17tet fifths: 705.882 cents
>
> I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone
> and 17tet versions.
> 12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear
> the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet
> version as well.
>
> Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still
> prefers meantone or 17tet.
> If you do, let me know!
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcel
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

I did come up with some temperaments along the same line in the not-too-distant past, dubbed "Ultimate Synchronous-Beating Well Temperament nr. 1-4". My preference rests with number 4 or 4b:

Ultimate Synchronous Proportional Beating Well-Temperament nr.4 by Dr. Oz.
12
!
37/35
353/315
208/175
79/63
701/525
148/105
472/315
111/70
176/105
312/175
592/315
2/1

Ultimate Synchronous Proportional Beating Well-Temperament nr.4b by Dr. Oz.
12
!
37/35
353/315
208/175
79/63
234/175
148/105
472/315
111/70
176/105
312/175
592/315
2/1

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:28 PM, kraiggrady wrote:

> George Secor has come up with some good temperaments that sound good to
> my ear. often with giving each key a slightly different flavor.
> I used this one which i was quite happy with although there was ones he
> preferred which must be in the tuning list archives somewhere.
> http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com.au/search/label/George%20Secor
>
> On 7/03/13 1:56 AM, James Fenn wrote:
>> Hi Marcel,
>>
>> I must admit I much prefer the 12tet version over pythag. The first part
>> with the minor triads sounds great in py but when the major harmonies
>> appear, the large major 3rds go against the grain to my ears and distorts
>> the character of the piece - I find them quite noticeable in this context.
>> My preferences go, from favourite to least: 12tet, 1/4 comma, pythag, 17et.
>>
>> I have heard experiments where in a well-tempered tuning, a large major 3rd
>> in a triad can suit the style of the piece but I don't think it does in
>> this one.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> James
>>
>>
>> On 6 March 2013 14:16, Marcel de Velde <marcel@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> Finally found a pretty well tuned sampled piano, Garritan's Steinway basic.
>>> It's still not perfect, but at least much better than other sampled
>>> pianos I've tried up till now.
>>> I've just made a tuning comparison with it using Elgar's Enigma theme.
>>>
>>> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma
>>>
>>> 1: 12tet
>>> 2: Pythagorean
>>> 3: 1/4 comma meantone
>>> 4: 17tet
>>>
>>> All tunings were done according to the correct enharmonic notation used
>>> by Elgar (and double checked by me to see that the score did not contain
>>> errors).
>>> The score indicates a chain of fifths from Eb to C#.
>>> 12tet fifths: 700 cents
>>> Pythagorean fifths: 701.955 cents
>>> 1/4 comma meantone fifths: 696.578 cents
>>> 17tet fifths: 705.882 cents
>>>
>>> I personally prefer Pythagorean with a great margin over the meantone
>>> and 17tet versions.
>>> 12tet is pretty good too though, and I have to listen carefully to hear
>>> the differences, but when I do I prefer Pythagorean over the 12tet
>>> version as well.
>>>
>>> Since this demo is so clear to me, I wonder if anybody here still
>>> prefers meantone or 17tet.
>>> If you do, let me know!
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Marcel
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> signature file
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^/Kraig Grady_^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> a momentary antenna as i turn to water
> this evaporates - an island once again
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <marcel@...>

Thank you Caleb, James and Nuorvala for your feedback!

I continues to suprise me how people listen to / hear the same music in different ways.
To me the part where it switches to major chords is fantastic in Pythagorean, it captures this shift with much greater emotional expression and it fits the music like a glove for me.
The meantone version is about as unlistenable as the 17tet version to me. Both make me cringe of "out of tune-ness".
I guess this is a clear example how one tuning can't fit everybody's preferences.

I am coming back a little from liking this Garritan Steinway sample set though..
I'm finding small tuning errors upon closer listen, and the octave stretching is starting to bother me (and the octave stretching may well disfavor Pythagorean and 17tet a little).

I've made another version using Pianoteq 4 D4 piano with maximum string length (which gives virtually no octave stretching in pianoteq).
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma-1
Here at least the tuning is perfect (though I have some other issues with Pianoteq..)
There are a few notes missing though as I used the trial version, but this is hardly noticeable with this piece.

Kind regards,
Marcel

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

Hi Marcel,

I think I like the Pythagorean best, though I think each has its own merits
with the 17 being noticeably "off sounding" in places, but then that was
the only not near 12 tuning.

The piano does sound really good. Indeed I may have to put this on my list.
I didn't think anything could out do pianoteq, however, the Garritan piano
has a nice warmth.

Considering I used this for an "assignment" I never heard the actually
arrangement, only the melody. Thanks for using it - its lovely and makes
sense of that very strange melody.

All the best,

Chris

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Marcel de Velde
<marcel@...>wrote:

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

Thanks for doing the comparison, Marcel.

Let's get the bottom line first. My preference for the tunings, from best
to worst, are:

1. Meantone
2. Pythagorean
3. 12-tET
4. 17-tET

...with meantone a clear winner, pythagorean and 12-tET being about the
same, and 17-tET being a clear loser.

-----

The piano sound is excellent, and so was the choice of material. If I'm
going to listen to something over and over again, it's nice to have it be
such beautiful music.

To protect myself against bias, I tried to prevent myself from knowing what
order they were played in. I couldn't help but see that 12-tET was first,
but I didn't know the others.

The 17-tET version was instantly recognizable (I didn't recognize it as 17,
but I knew it wasn't meantone or pythagorean) and pretty ugly. I like some
of the music I've heard in 17, but this music wasn't suited to the tuning.

Since I knew the first and the last, I also knew that the middle two were
either meantone or pythagorean. I think the music is well-suited to both --
in fact, from my perspective, you chose music that was particularly
well-suited for pythagorean, and I learned a few lessons from it -- more on
that in a minute.

The first time through the pythagorean section, I was almost startled by
the bright, cheery sound of the first major chord. That's true even though
I had already heard the 12-tET version. It's a really good use of a sharp
major third.

The meantone section is subtly but audibly more peaceful; the "rise" I got
from the first major chord in pythagorean tuning was still there, but more
relaxed somehow. The ending chord, which is major and sustained, was
definitely more peaceful than the pythagorean version.

There's very little difference between pythagorean and 12-tET, but I
perceive the difference as a pleasant brassiness or brightness, and that
first major third still stands out.

After a few listenings, I noticed that the differences in the accompaniment
seem more important than the differences in the melody. Again, the
differences are subtle to my ear, but the meantone version is smoother,
more gentle, more peaceful. The pythagorean and 12-tET are both good too,
but they vibrate more. The accompaniment is the worst part about the 17-tET
version: I think that the 17-tET melody by itself wouldn't be a problem.

I think this piece was particularly good as a demonstration of
pythagorean's good qualities.

1. Much of it has a minor flavor. I find that it's much easier for me to
deal with flat minor thirds rather than sharp major thirds: I like 13/11
(289 cents) and really like the roar of the 7/6 (266 cents), but 14/11 (417
cents) is spicy enough that it took some getting used to, and I'm usually
not a fan of 9/7 (435 cents). The mostly-minor flavor of the piece allows
the bright moments to shine without being overwhelming or too brassy.

2. The major section is in a higher register, which makes the brassy aspect
of the sharp major thirds seem like brightness or sparkle, which seems very
appropriate for this piece.

3. The first major chord isn't sustained, so the beating that results from
the sharpness of the major third isn't that important. The final chord is
sustained, which means it's not as restful as the meantone version's final
chord, but by the end of the piece it's not something I'd get hung up on.

Those three comments are based on what I heard as well as the way I think
things should be. Your mileage may vary. I think that these are good things
to keep in mind when composing in a scale that has sharp thirds, though.

Regards,
Jake

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗kraiggrady@...

One parameter that does not appear in such a test is how a tuning effects one of a longer period of time. ispent quite a few years working in 31 ET but when i heard a 9/8 i realized i couldn't live with suc ha small whole tone as mean-tone provides.

,',',',Kraig Grady,',',',
'''''''North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
'''''''South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria
',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Freivald [mailto:jdfreivald@...]
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:00 AM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [MMM] Tuning comparison, Elgar Enigma in 12tet, Pythagorean, meantone and 17tet.

Thanks for doing the comparison, Marcel.

Let's get the bottom line first. My preference for the tunings, from best
to worst, are:

1. Meantone
2. Pythagorean
3. 12-tET
4. 17-tET

...with meantone a clear winner, pythagorean and 12-tET being about the
same, and 17-tET being a clear loser.

-----

The piano sound is excellent, and so was the choice of material. If I'm
going to listen to something over and over again, it's nice to have it be
such beautiful music.

To protect myself against bias, I tried to prevent myself from knowing what
order they were played in. I couldn't help but see that 12-tET was first,
but I didn't know the others.

There's very little difference between pythagorean and 12-tET, but I
perceive the difference as a pleasant brassiness or brightness, and that
first major third still stands out.

I think this piece was particularly good as a demonstration of
pythagorean's good qualities.

2. The major section is in a higher register, which makes the brassy aspect
of the sharp major thirds seem like brightness or sparkle, which seems very
appropriate for this piece.

Regards,
Jake

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Marcel de Velde <marcel@...>

Hi Jake,

Thanks for your detailed feedback!

Have you heard both piano versions btw?
First is Garritan piano, the one I posted originally:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma

But then I became more and more unhappy with the small tuning errors in
the base samples, and on top of that the octave stretching which is also
in the base samples.
So I redid the comparison with Pianoteq 4:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-elgar-enigma-1

> Thanks for doing the comparison, Marcel.
>
> Let's get the bottom line first. My preference for the tunings, from best
> to worst, are:
>
> 1. Meantone
> 2. Pythagorean
> 3. 12-tET
> 4. 17-tET
>
> ...with meantone a clear winner, pythagorean and 12-tET being about the
> same, and 17-tET being a clear loser.
>
> -----
>
> The piano sound is excellent, and so was the choice of material. If I'm
> going to listen to something over and over again, it's nice to have it be
> such beautiful music.
>
Was it the Garritan piano that you like the sound of or the Pianoteq piano?
I'm undecided between the 2, but Pianoteq is much more playable and
customizable, it's in perfect tune when you want it to, and it does
keyboard mappings.
I used to have trouble with keyboard mapping with Pianoteq 2.x but this
is fixed in 4 it seems, also like the sound a lot better of D4 piano.
So I'm thinking about buying Pianoteq 4, the only really good piano at
the moment for precise tuning it seems to me.

> To protect myself against bias, I tried to prevent myself from knowing
> what
> order they were played in. I couldn't help but see that 12-tET was first,
> but I didn't know the others.
>
> The 17-tET version was instantly recognizable (I didn't recognize it
> as 17,
> but I knew it wasn't meantone or pythagorean) and pretty ugly. I like some
> of the music I've heard in 17, but this music wasn't suited to the tuning.
>
> Since I knew the first and the last, I also knew that the middle two were
> either meantone or pythagorean. I think the music is well-suited to
> both --
> in fact, from my perspective, you chose music that was particularly
> well-suited for pythagorean, and I learned a few lessons from it --
> more on
> that in a minute.
>
I'm not sure if it's any better suited to Pythagorean.
Well in my opinion all music is Pythagorean when played in tune haha.
But I don't see this music disfavoring meantone particularly, more
chromatic music would do this.
I made 2 more tuning demos of 12tet vs Pythagorean vs 1/4 comma meantone
vs 17tet a while ago:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-mussorgsky
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-mozart-alla-turca
And yesterday I made one more for Margo:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/tuning-demo-margo-schulter
I personally like all of them most in Pythagorean.
With all of them 1/4 comma meantone sounds out of tune to me.
But in my opinion out of all the meantone versions Margo's one works
best in it.
I think the general public would on average prefer 12tet or Pythagorean
for all these pieces, except for Margo's one where I could well see the
average person liking the meantone version best.
And on these tuning lists of course everybody except me will like the
meantone version most for that piece ;)

> The first time through the pythagorean section, I was almost startled by
> the bright, cheery sound of the first major chord. That's true even though
> I had already heard the 12-tET version. It's a really good use of a sharp
> major third.
>
> The meantone section is subtly but audibly more peaceful; the "rise" I got
> from the first major chord in pythagorean tuning was still there, but more
> relaxed somehow. The ending chord, which is major and sustained, was
> definitely more peaceful than the pythagorean version.
>
> There's very little difference between pythagorean and 12-tET, but I
> perceive the difference as a pleasant brassiness or brightness, and that
> first major third still stands out.
>
> After a few listenings, I noticed that the differences in the
> accompaniment
> seem more important than the differences in the melody. Again, the
> differences are subtle to my ear, but the meantone version is smoother,
> more gentle, more peaceful. The pythagorean and 12-tET are both good too,
> but they vibrate more. The accompaniment is the worst part about the
> 17-tET
> version: I think that the 17-tET melody by itself wouldn't be a problem.
>
Good for listening that way! And I agree, the 17tet melody isn't that bad.
I personally think the 1/4 comma meantone melody is slightly worse.

> I think this piece was particularly good as a demonstration of
> pythagorean's good qualities.
>
> 1. Much of it has a minor flavor. I find that it's much easier for me to
> deal with flat minor thirds rather than sharp major thirds: I like 13/11
> (289 cents) and really like the roar of the 7/6 (266 cents), but 14/11
> (417
> cents) is spicy enough that it took some getting used to, and I'm usually
> not a fan of 9/7 (435 cents). The mostly-minor flavor of the piece allows
> the bright moments to shine without being overwhelming or too brassy.
>
> 2. The major section is in a higher register, which makes the brassy
> aspect
> of the sharp major thirds seem like brightness or sparkle, which seems
> very
> appropriate for this piece.
>
> 3. The first major chord isn't sustained, so the beating that results from
> the sharpness of the major third isn't that important. The final chord is
> sustained, which means it's not as restful as the meantone version's final
> chord, but by the end of the piece it's not something I'd get hung up on.
>
> Those three comments are based on what I heard as well as the way I think
> things should be. Your mileage may vary. I think that these are good
> things
> to keep in mind when composing in a scale that has sharp thirds, though.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
I am wondering, in the case your comments were based on the Garritan
version.
Is there any change in your perception of the intervals when listening
to the Pianoteq version?
The differences in tuning are small, but when it comes to such precise
listening they can matter.

Kind regards,
Marcel

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]