Carl's opinion on FPI tuning

That's Free Pitched Instruments. And, if you only had to read one thing
about my opinion on tuning them, Hstick says it best!

>I don't think our fixed pitch instruments are stuck in 12; our
>minds are...Hstick

Bingo! If we had the conservatories filled with Xenharmonic keyboards and
theory classes, then we have ensembles using Xenharmonics in a very
effective way (as opposed to doing it by accident, as they do now).

>What a manufacturer considers 'correct' may vary very slightly. But in
>general, it seems that much effort is put into actually 'centering' the
>resultant pitches which arise, by equalling out factors of breath pressure
in >tests etc . And the 'model' is certainly 12-ET.

I don't know as much about clarinets, but I've played the trumpet for many
years. And trumpet players are notorious "equipment freaks", so I am always
up on the latest stuff. But when it comes down to it, trumpets are just
three natural horns in a small package. Thus, playing the harmonic series
is easy as can be -> When you hear an arpegio, you can bet it's Just.

I've got two top-of-the-line professional Bb horns, a Bach Stradivarius with
72 bell and a Yamaha ML heavy-wall. And I've played many different
configurations of the above. I can personally say, and it is well known,
that the intonational characteristics vary widely from horn to horn of the
same make and config, let alone different makes and configurations.

As far as what intonational 'model' the builders shoot for, they must be
torn between good harmonic characteristics and 12equal approximations. The
Yamaha tends to pull towards the 12 equal in the high register, but is just
plain out of tune in any system in the low range. The Bach tends to be more
harmonic throughout, and the tone is plainly warmer to the most novice listener.

But either horn will intone however my conservatory-trained friend wants it
to, once he's had a few minutes to get to know the pet peeves of it.

The bottom line is: I'm all for new instrument design of any kind. But I
can only see biasing free pitched instruments to equal temperaments as the
exception (say, for keyboard concertos) rather than the rule.

And the real bottom line is just what Hstick says.

Carl


SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: "Paul H. Erlich"
Subject: RE: Xenharmonic?
PostedDate: 20-11-97 22:38:11
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$MessageStorage: 0
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 20-11-97 22:36:48-20-11-97 22:36:49,20-11-97 22:36:55-20-11-97 22:36:56
DeliveredDate: 20-11-97 22:36:56
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2
9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256555.0076B5E7; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:36:38 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA04262; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:38:11 +0100
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:38:11 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA04260
Received: (qmail 19382 invoked from network); 20 Nov 1997 13:38:08 -0800
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 20 Nov 1997 13:38:08 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu