Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Announcement of radio programme

Radio 4 is live on the internet:

http://www.omroep.nl/radio4/live20.asx

low bandwith unfortunately

> -----Original Message-----
> From: manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com
> [mailto:manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 8:22 AM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Announcement of radio programme
>
>
> The concert with modern music on gamelan in Amsterdam
> next Sunday which I've announced earlier, will be held
> too in Vredenburg, Utrecht on Monday 26-2 20.30 h.
> This concert will get a simultaneous EBU radio transmission
> in 14 countries. In Holland: Radio 4, in Belgium:
> RTBF Musique 3, 20.30-22.30 h.
>
> Manuel Op de Coul
>
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery
> on hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Maximiliano G. Miranda Zanetti <giordanobruno76@yahoo.com.ar>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

Tuners,

One thing of interest: Neidhardt, who Bach's pupil Lorenz Mizler referred to
as a better tuning theorist than Werckmeister, did publish the equivalent of
perfect 12-tet in 1724, as 'Neidhardt IV'....

The question remains whether Bach knew of this article, and this specific
tuning plan, if his student did. It certainly seems conceivable. But
remember, this was not the first publish reference to pure ET--even the
ancient chinese had that mathematically figured out--the question is how
accurately anyone could do it by ear even though they know it exists. It's
interesting to ponder whether Bach knew Neidhardt IV specifically.

OTOH, 12-tet is still less pragmatic for keyboards without a fixed reference.
Even piano tuners rarely end up doing a pure 12-equal without electronics,
what more often happens is they do a good approximate 12-equal
'well-temperament' by bearing the thirds C-E-G#-c subjectively as 'equally
rough' in the wide direction, and then bearing the 4 fifths of each major
third as in meantone. By ear, this leads to good results: I can attest that
many pianists I have known don't like the result of an electronic tuner--too
accurate!! In other words, they prefer the feel of a well-tempered
approximation to 12-tet, for reasons of heightened tonal contrast.

Another way of looking at it --- we should only *really* be objecting to the
highly accurate electronic keyboard 12-tet !!! (and maybe fretted
instruments-nah!)

Incidentally, I much prefer Neidhardt I since trying it, to the oft-mentioned,
overly-popular and mis-applied Werckmeister III.

Neidhardt I is:

start by bearing the thirds:
C-E slightly wide (about 2.2 per second in the octave below middle C range,
but, you can try close to 2.5 - don't be too anal-this is the 18th century
after all)
E-G# and G#-C are made equally rough, but slightly favor the purity of E-G#

now, the fifths:
C-G-D-A-E fifths are flattened slightly, as in meantone, (don't touch E)
C-F-Bb pure fifths descending
Bb-Eb-G# temper equally , (don't touch G#.)
G#-C#-F# pure fifths descending
F#-B-E temper equally, (don't touch E)

try this with any Bach, it works *very* well, I find it a richer, more robust
tuning than Werck III. Also as quick to tune. Just my opinion, don't flame me
(Johnny or others who hold Werck III as the holy grail)

Best,
Aaron.

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
>
> Tuners,
>
> One thing of interest: Neidhardt, who Bach's pupil Lorenz Mizler
referred to
> as a better tuning theorist than Werckmeister, did publish the
equivalent of
> perfect 12-tet in 1724, as 'Neidhardt IV'....
>
> The question remains whether Bach knew of this article, and this
specific
> tuning plan, if his student did. It certainly seems conceivable.
But
> remember, this was not the first publish reference to pure ET--even
the
> ancient chinese had that mathematically figured out--the question
is how
> accurately anyone could do it by ear even though they know it
exists. It's
> interesting to ponder whether Bach knew Neidhardt IV specifically.
>
> OTOH, 12-tet is still less pragmatic for keyboards without a fixed
reference.
> Even piano tuners rarely end up doing a pure 12-equal without
electronics,

Before electronics, piano tuners used a complete set of tuning forks.
I used to own one. Electronic tuners are not always as accurate as
you might have imagined...

> what more often happens is they do a good approximate 12-equal
> 'well-temperament' by bearing the thirds C-E-G#-c subjectively
as 'equally
> rough' in the wide direction, and then bearing the 4 fifths of each
major
> third as in meantone. By ear, this leads to good results: I can
attest that
> many pianists I have known don't like the result of an electronic
tuner--too
> accurate!! In other words, they prefer the feel of a well-tempered
> approximation to 12-tet, for reasons of heightened tonal contrast.
>
> Another way of looking at it --- we should only *really* be
objecting to the
> highly accurate electronic keyboard 12-tet !!! (and maybe fretted
> instruments-nah!)
>
> Incidentally, I much prefer Neidhardt I since trying it, to the oft-
mentioned,
> overly-popular and mis-applied Werckmeister III.
>
> Neidhardt I is:
>
> start by bearing the thirds:
> C-E slightly wide (about 2.2 per second in the octave below middle
C range,
> but, you can try close to 2.5 - don't be too anal-this is the 18th
century
> after all)
> E-G# and G#-C are made equally rough, but slightly favor the purity
of E-G#
>
> now, the fifths:
> C-G-D-A-E fifths are flattened slightly, as in meantone, (don't
touch E)
> C-F-Bb pure fifths descending
> Bb-Eb-G# temper equally , (don't touch G#.)
> G#-C#-F# pure fifths descending
> F#-B-E temper equally, (don't touch E)
>
> try this with any Bach, it works *very* well, I find it a richer,
more robust
> tuning than Werck III. Also as quick to tune. Just my opinion,
don't flame me
> (Johnny or others who hold Werck III as the holy grail)
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

🔗a440a@aol.com

Peter Wakefield Sault writes:

>>Before electronics, piano tuners used a complete set of tuning forks.

I used to own one. Electronic tuners are not always as accurate as

you might have imagined... >>

Greetings,
I must disagree. It might seem logical that simply matching a string to a
fork would be fast and accurate, but in practicality, the reverse is true.
The use of sets of forks was a limited experiment, and in the tuning
literature, there is scant evidence that many tuners followed this. (Jorgensen even
has a quote from a early 19th century writer that no tuner would take the time
to use a set of forks.) It is much faster to go through a bearing plan by
ear.
There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or to a
monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that matching unisons is a
rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the standard, the
less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats begin to slow down
and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner is unable, without
further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat from the standard.
The difference can easily make intervals wider or narrower than desired.
Another problem is that forks are not inharmonic the way strings are, so
you would be attempting to align the partials in a set of strings by matching
their fundamental frequencies to a standard. This will do a poor job of
tuning, at best.

Ed Foote RPT
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
<A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> Peter Wakefield Sault writes:
>
>
> >>Before electronics, piano tuners used a complete set of tuning
forks.
>
> I used to own one. Electronic tuners are not always as accurate as
>
> you might have imagined... >>
>
> Greetings,
> I must disagree. It might seem logical that simply matching a
string to a
> fork would be fast and accurate, but in practicality, the reverse
is true.
> The use of sets of forks was a limited experiment, and in the
tuning
> literature, there is scant evidence that many tuners followed
this. (Jorgensen even
> has a quote from a early 19th century writer that no tuner would
take the time
> to use a set of forks.) It is much faster to go through a bearing
plan by
> ear.
> There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or
to a
> monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that
matching unisons is a
> rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the
standard, the
> less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats begin
to slow down
> and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner is
unable, without
> further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat from the
standard.

I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only when
the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the beat is
of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all intents
and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in tune.

> The difference can easily make intervals wider or narrower than
desired.
> Another problem is that forks are not inharmonic the way strings
are, so
> you would be attempting to align the partials in a set of strings
by matching
> their fundamental frequencies to a standard. This will do a poor
job of
> tuning, at best.
>
>

The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to the
forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing difficulties
that don't exist. To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any scientific
basis to what you say. Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing Chopin I
don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that is what
the composer intended.

>
> Ed Foote RPT
> http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> <A
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html
">
> MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only when
>the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
>disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the beat is
>of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all intents
>and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in tune.

But in practice there's a zone in which the beats are too slow to
tell if they're slowing down further, or speeding up, unless you
sit there for a long time, wracking your ear.

>The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to the
>forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing difficulties
>that don't exist. To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
>tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any scientific
>basis to what you say.

You are apparently unaware that piano strings do not behave like
ideal strings, that their timbre spectrum is not perfectly harmonic.
You can do a spectrogram on your piano and find this out for yourself,
or search the web and find thousands of detailed discussions and
graphs and everything else on the matter.

Unlike tuning forks which produce only a sine tone at the desired
fundamental, modern electronic tuners such as the Verituner,
Sanderson AccuTuner, and Reyburn Cybertuner listen to the partials
and the fundamental of the piano timbre and tune based on all
this information, as a real piano tuner does when he follows a
bearing plan.

It's ultimately a judgement call. Tuning the fundamentals perfectly
and ignoring the partials *is* one strategy that may be preferred,
or not, in some or all cases. But it seems that most agree that
some sort of compromise between all the partials usually produces
a better-sounding tuning.

-Carl

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only when
> >the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
> >disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the beat
is
> >of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all intents
> >and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in tune.
>
> But in practice there's a zone in which the beats are too slow to
> tell if they're slowing down further, or speeding up, unless you
> sit there for a long time, wracking your ear.
>
> >The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to
the
> >forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing
difficulties
> >that don't exist. To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out
of
> >tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any
scientific
> >basis to what you say.
>
> You are apparently unaware that piano strings do not behave like
> ideal strings, that their timbre spectrum is not perfectly harmonic.
> You can do a spectrogram on your piano and find this out for
yourself,

Hi Carl

That wouldn't help much. My current 'piano' is a Yamaha Digital. A
compromise that stops me from getting lynched by my neighbours - and
dispenses with the need for tuning and restringing.

> or search the web and find thousands of detailed discussions and
> graphs and everything else on the matter.
>
> Unlike tuning forks which produce only a sine tone at the desired
> fundamental, modern electronic tuners such as the Verituner,
> Sanderson AccuTuner, and Reyburn Cybertuner listen to the partials
> and the fundamental of the piano timbre and tune based on all
> this information, as a real piano tuner does when he follows a
> bearing plan.
>
> It's ultimately a judgement call. Tuning the fundamentals perfectly
> and ignoring the partials *is* one strategy that may be preferred,
> or not, in some or all cases. But it seems that most agree that
> some sort of compromise between all the partials usually produces
> a better-sounding tuning.
>
> -Carl

This may be connected with the fundamentals getting increasingly
flatted up the clavier, which I have heard about but never
understood. However, the tuning forks were designed and made
specifically for tuning pianos. So one can safely assume that they
were weighted to provide the balance about which you speak. Except
for A440 they did not have the frequencies inscribed - and were
intended to be ET insofar as the labels were of the C#/Db variety. I
understand that the effect may vary according to size and
construction of the harp and composition/winding of strings so I
guess it was either a compromise or a set that was made for a
specific piano with strings supplied by the piano mfr - and not the
actual piano that I was tuning. I never thought about that at the
time. And since, as I said previously, it was a timber-frame piano
that I was tuning the niceties would have been purely academic
anyway. I tend not to focus on the imperfections unless they simply
cannot be ignored.

Peter

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>> Unlike tuning forks which produce only a sine tone at the desired
>> fundamental, modern electronic tuners such as the Verituner,
>> Sanderson AccuTuner, and Reyburn Cybertuner listen to the partials
>> and the fundamental of the piano timbre and tune based on all
>> this information, as a real piano tuner does when he follows a
>> bearing plan.
>>
>> It's ultimately a judgement call. Tuning the fundamentals perfectly
>> and ignoring the partials *is* one strategy that may be preferred,
>> or not, in some or all cases. But it seems that most agree that
>> some sort of compromise between all the partials usually produces
>> a better-sounding tuning.
>
>This may be connected with the fundamentals getting increasingly
>flatted up the clavier, which I have heard about but never
>understood.

Not sure to what your referring to. In general, the partials of
a piano string are sharp of true harmonics, and the octaves on a
piano are usually "stretched" because of this, and for other
reasons.

Did you have 88 forks or 12? With only 12 forks you must copy out
from the middle octave by ear. When you do this you will naturally
stretch the tuning, as slightly wide octaves beat less than pure
2:1 octaves do, on a piano.

>However, the tuning forks were designed and made
>specifically for tuning pianos. So one can safely assume that they
>were weighted to provide the balance about which you speak.

I wasn't actually addressing the stretch issue, but rather the
fact that because forks only produce sine tones (or very nearly),
you can only eliminate beating between a fork and a single partial
of the piano note you're tuning. Whereas when you tune to other
notes on the piano, you can compare multiple partials in each note.

>And since, as I said previously, it was a timber-frame piano
>that I was tuning the niceties would have been purely academic
>anyway. I tend not to focus on the imperfections unless they simply
>cannot be ignored.

Actually as I remember these older pianos actually had less
inharmonicity because the string tension was less. Maybe one of
the physics people or piano tuners here can chime in.

-Carl

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>
> Dear Peter
> What makes you think that the tuning forks were actuate? or could
have been how was it
> technologically possib;le?
> Lou Harrison Had evidence that Chopin did not tune his pino to ET
but a form of meantone.
> but like all my other objection i am sure you will just avoid it!
>
> >

I have no idea how precise the forks were. At that time I was happy
with the result and the Chopin (and Bach) sounded good to me (bar my
performances) - as did the rockin blues.

It was only a decade ago that I discovered the perfection of harmony
in JI. Now I hope to work with dynamically retuned JI and related
stuff, which I am sure I could also combine with live performace too.
Maybe I'm just a different kind of purist to you.

Peter

> > From: "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> > Subject: Re: Neidhardt IV and the Bach debate
> >
> >
> >
> > The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to
the
> > forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing
difficulties
> > that don't exist. To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out
of
> > tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any
scientific
> > basis to what you say. Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
> > don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing
Chopin I
> > don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that is
what
> > the composer intended.
> >
> >
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>

/tuning/topicId_2580.html#49724

wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Tuners,
> >
> > One thing of interest: Neidhardt, who Bach's pupil Lorenz Mizler
> referred to
> > as a better tuning theorist than Werckmeister, did publish the
> equivalent of
> > perfect 12-tet in 1724, as 'Neidhardt IV'....
> >
> > The question remains whether Bach knew of this article, and this
> specific
> > tuning plan, if his student did. It certainly seems conceivable.
> But
> > remember, this was not the first publish reference to pure ET--
even
> the
> > ancient chinese had that mathematically figured out--the question
> is how
> > accurately anyone could do it by ear even though they know it
> exists. It's
> > interesting to ponder whether Bach knew Neidhardt IV specifically.
> >
> > OTOH, 12-tet is still less pragmatic for keyboards without a
fixed
> reference.
> > Even piano tuners rarely end up doing a pure 12-equal without
> electronics,
>
>
> Before electronics, piano tuners used a complete set of tuning
forks.
> I used to own one. Electronic tuners are not always as accurate as
> you might have imagined...
>

***Well, my understanding, from the piano tuning courses that *I*
took, was that they generally used *one* tuning fork and then tables
of beats for the various 12-tET intervals through the temperament...
since the same intervals as the pitch rises *don't* beat all the same
throughout a one octave temperament range, as was pointed out...

J. Pehrson

🔗a440a@aol.com

Greetings,
I wrote:
>There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or
to a
> monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that
matching unisons is a
> rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the
standard, the
> less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats begin
to slow down
> and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner is
unable, without
> further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat from the
standard.

Peter Wakefield Sault responds:
>>I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only when
the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the beat is
of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all intents
and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in tune.<<

Hmm, I think your intents and purposes might allow a little more
tolerance than mine. You will not get a professional level ET by matching
fundamentals to forks, (at least, not on more than one particular instrument, since
the inharmonicity varies between sizes and brands).

Sault again:
>>The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to the
forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing difficulties
that don't exist. <<

Oh, the difficulties exist, I work with them daily. "Strings are equal to
forks" isn't descriptive, because forks don't produce the spectra that strings
do. All the fork will do is place a fundamental, but the tempering of
intervals is measured by the interaction of their partials. Forks can't get one
closer than an approximation.

>>To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any scientific
basis to what you say. <<

The frequencies produced by strings are inharmonic, which is the term used
to describe the non-linear departure from even mulitples of the fundamental
that the partials exhibit. I KNOW there is scientific basis of this, I see it
every day.

>> Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing Chopin I
don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that is what
the composer intended. >>

I make a good living from tuning equal temperament in recording,
performance, and broadcast venues. For me, it is a tool, nothing more. It is
certainly an ideal from the scientific perspective, but musically, it is simply the
result of an average. If we had been born with 20 fingers and huge hands, I
don't think ET would have been more than a passing fancy on the way to 19 ET or
something else. There is nothing magical about a 14 cent third, and there is
something stultifying about having them all the same.
Chopin in ET is rather bland when compared with something like the Moore &
Co. tuning or Broadwood tunings that Jorgensen has published. There is a
difference when the texture of a varied and highly tempered harmony supports a
melodic line of pure fifths, and this doesn't happen in ET. Chopin's choice of
key also exhibits a strong correlation to the ascending dissonance found in
well-temperaments. This correlation is exactly opposite of Beethoven and
Mozart's.
I have even recorded Chopin on a DeMorgan tuning, which is the reverse of
the normal well-temperament format, and I think it is even blander than ET!
ET isn't as damaging for Chopin as it is for Beethoven, Haydn, etal, but once
an ear has become familiar with the WT palette, the increase in brilliance and
contrast found in a WT does wonderful things for Chopin's music. To some, it
makes no difference, to others, it is very evident.
Ed Foote RPT
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
<A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/13/03 5:12 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, kraig grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Dear Peter
>> What makes you think that the tuning forks were actuate? or could
> have been how was it
>> technologically possib;le?
>> Lou Harrison Had evidence that Chopin did not tune his pino to ET
> but a form of meantone.
>> but like all my other objection i am sure you will just avoid it!
>>
>>>
>
> I have no idea how precise the forks were. At that time I was happy
> with the result and the Chopin (and Bach) sounded good to me (bar my
> performances) - as did the rockin blues.
>
> It was only a decade ago that I discovered the perfection of harmony
> in JI. Now I hope to work with dynamically retuned JI and related
> stuff, which I am sure I could also combine with live performace too.
> Maybe I'm just a different kind of purist to you.

If you are a purist you may be disappointed to discover just how "impure"
the piano is, that there is no such thing as accurately tuning a piano, that
there is no such thing as a just interval on the piano. However in spite of
this it is possible to get adequately close for many listening purposes, and
by knowing the problems to achieve much better results. But this pretty
much puts purism out of the picture.

Chances are that if your yamaha sounds anything like a piano at all, that it
has plenty of inharmonicity built in, probably by using samples of many
seconds in length such that many cycles of the fundamental and of all
partial are present. Trying to do the same thing with a single cycle of a
piano waveform would be impossible because there is no such thing as a
single cycle of a piano waveform. Never mind the fact that a piano sample
might also want the unisons to be off a little, conceivably, because perfect
unisons across the board would be probably unrepresentative of a realistic
piano sound. But it is not only for that reason that long samples are
needed but probably more primarily so that the partials that are not exact
harmonics can make their natural contribution.

The tuning of a piano to make use of the way non-harmonic partials interact
is a deep art. It is full of much possibility of different emphasis to
achieve different effect. It has very little to do with purity of any kind.
A particular approach might refer to a particular kind of purity. In some
cases there may be objective realities that correlate with the individually
identified kinds of purity. Tuning fumdamentals would be one possible such
approach, but it strikes me this approach would have only one kind of
purity: theoretical, except possibly by accident on a given kind of piano.

Much has been discussed about this and you might actually want to look
through the archives.

Please take note of what you said a few posts back:

> The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to the
> forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing difficulties
> that don't exist.

The didn't exist in your awareness, yes.

> To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
> tune) just doesn't make sense.

To you, yes.

> I don't think there is any scientific basis to what you say.

So you don't think so. Ok.

You took three sentences to reveal what you didn't know in the form of
claimed (even if tentative) knowledge. The alternative is to expose what
you don't know directly, in the form of questions, which requires being
savvy in advance to the fact that you might at any time encounter knowledge
you weren't previously exposed to. Mind you I don't think anyone is perfect
at this. We can be taken aback by our own assumptions particularly when we
enter new arenas.

> Moreover, the forks worked for me.

Now you are coming back to your own experience without claiming anything
beyond that. Still the experience of a piano that is tuned by a different
method might be very revealing. Knowing the territory and the vastness of
the unknown and the degree of subjectivity it should be possible as a tuner
to make *no* assumptions, while using a certain method merely as a
"question" - a step in a dialog "with the piano" if you will. This requires
total openness about what may yet remain unknown.

[Kurt steps up on higher podium - disregard rest of message if you wish]

Mind you I still make similar mistakes. But the awareness that I might
always be mistaken, if it becomes more familiar rather than being forgotten
until the next "incident", can help dialogs to proceed with more directness,
less presumption, and less consequent irritation to others. Not that others
need to be irritated either, especially if they remember making similar
mistakes themselves. Carl was very generous with you, and if he was
irritated, I think he took responsibility for it and contained it entirely.

What I am hinting at here is the possibility of a meta-lesson, as opposed to
simply a long series of lessons marked by presumption followed by
revelation. If you were to plot a line which represented your net
experience I think you would see less discontinuity (less disruption) and
therefore more effective integration. All your knowledge "corners" nicely
with you as you enter a curve (a state of questioning) and you do not have
to spin out and get back on the road again as a separate step.

So if someone says something that strikes you as absurd or wrong or
unlikely, why not simply assume first that it is your knowledge that is
lacking, and start asking questions in order to determine that? I think
there is considerable value to this. I would say it reduces the noise-level
in the communication. Every time the noise level drops a notch, another
possible refinement may be revealed, so that we start developing the art of
communicating, instead of leaving communication in the form of a sparring
match with a lot of brusk transitions and reduced sense of continuity.

The "goal" might be to replace the knee-jerk response to make statements
when different points of view come up with an innate response to ask
questions. The questioning response might *actually* be the older and more
innate one, and thus inherently familiar and confortable once it is
rediscovered. I will be very interested to hear what you discover if you
try this and find how it works for you.

-Kurt

>
> Peter

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

>>And since, as I said previously, it was a timber-frame piano
>>that I was tuning the niceties would have been purely academic
>>anyway. I tend not to focus on the imperfections unless they simply
>>cannot be ignored.
>
>Actually as I remember these older pianos actually had less
>inharmonicity because the string tension was less. Maybe one of
>the physics people or piano tuners here can chime in.

Here's the thread I was remembering from crazy_music. According
to John, tension improves harmonicity while thickness makes it
worse...

>[Carl Lumma:]
>>>>Hmm. I thought that higher-tension strings actually behave more
>>>>harmonically. Maybe JdL can help us out here.
>
>[I wrote:]
>>>The inharmonicity of piano strings is due to limited bending
>>>flexibility, so that higher harmonics have an effectively higher
>>>spring constant to push against than they would if the string were
>>>infinitely flexible.
>
>[Carl:]
>>Right.
>
>[JdL:]
>>>This implies that any _given_ string is more harmonic at higher
>>>tension than at low (bending flexibility is relatively less
>>>important).
>
>[Carl:]
>>Ah, that's what I never understood.
>
>[JdL:]
>>>But, as tensions go up, so must the thickness of the
>>>string that will take the tension without breaking.
>
>[Carl:]
>>Really? Think the move from iron and brass to steel may have
>>helped?
>
>Helped in that iron/steel can take more stress than brass, so the
>strings can be thinner.
>
>[JdL:]
>>>Since a thicker string has bending stiffness that increases faster
>>>than string area (assuming a uniform cross-section), the statement
>>>that higher tensions lead to greater inharmonicity is correct, I
>>>believe.
>
>[Carl:]
>>Why, then, did pianos evolve higher and higher string tension?
>>More amplitude?
>
>That and longer sustain, I believe. We should get someone who's a
>bigger expert in pianos to comment; I'm getting beyond my field of
>knowledge here.

-Carl

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> Greetings,
> I wrote:
> >There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or
> to a
> > monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that
> matching unisons is a
> > rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the
> standard, the
> > less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats
begin
> to slow down
> > and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner is
> unable, without
> > further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat from
the
> standard.
>
> Peter Wakefield Sault responds:
> >>I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only
when
> the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
> disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the beat
is
> of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all intents
> and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in tune.<<
>
> Hmm, I think your intents and purposes might allow a little
more
> tolerance than mine. You will not get a professional level ET by
matching
> fundamentals to forks, (at least, not on more than one particular
instrument, since
> the inharmonicity varies between sizes and brands).
>
> Sault again:
> >>The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal to
the
> forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing
difficulties
> that don't exist. <<
>
> Oh, the difficulties exist, I work with them daily. "Strings are
equal to
> forks" isn't descriptive, because forks don't produce the spectra
that strings
> do. All the fork will do is place a fundamental, but the tempering
of
> intervals is measured by the interaction of their partials. Forks
can't get one
> closer than an approximation.
>
> >>To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
> tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any
scientific
> basis to what you say. <<
>
> The frequencies produced by strings are inharmonic, which is the
term used
> to describe the non-linear departure from even mulitples of the
fundamental
> that the partials exhibit. I KNOW there is scientific basis of
this, I see it
> every day.
>
> >> Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
> don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing Chopin
I
> don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that is
what
> the composer intended. >>
>
> I make a good living from tuning equal temperament in
recording,
> performance, and broadcast venues. For me, it is a tool, nothing
more. It is
> certainly an ideal from the scientific perspective, but musically,
it is simply the
> result of an average. If we had been born with 20 fingers and huge
hands, I
> don't think ET would have been more than a passing fancy on the way
to 19 ET or
> something else. There is nothing magical about a 14 cent third,
and there is
> something stultifying about having them all the same.
> Chopin in ET is rather bland when compared with something like
the Moore &
> Co. tuning or Broadwood tunings that Jorgensen has published.
There is a
> difference when the texture of a varied and highly tempered harmony
supports a
> melodic line of pure fifths, and this doesn't happen in ET.
Chopin's choice of
> key also exhibits a strong correlation to the ascending dissonance
found in
> well-temperaments. This correlation is exactly opposite of
Beethoven and
> Mozart's.
> I have even recorded Chopin on a DeMorgan tuning, which is the
reverse of
> the normal well-temperament format, and I think it is even blander
than ET!
> ET isn't as damaging for Chopin as it is for Beethoven, Haydn,
etal, but once
> an ear has become familiar with the WT palette, the increase in
brilliance and
> contrast found in a WT does wonderful things for Chopin's music.
To some, it
> makes no difference, to others, it is very evident.
> Ed Foote RPT
> http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> <A
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html
">
> MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

Do you have a reference? My reference (James Jeans 'Science and
Music') has just explained to me (again!) the reason why it is
physically impossible for a harmonic on a vibrating string to be
anything other than a whole number multiple of the fundamental. I
have a vague recollection from somewhere, something to do with
guitars, that after being struck or plucked, the fundamental itself
drops in frequency during the first part of the decay - a reason for
not hitting strings too hard. I think that must be what you are
talking about.

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>And since, as I said previously, it was a timber-frame piano
> >>that I was tuning the niceties would have been purely academic
> >>anyway. I tend not to focus on the imperfections unless they
simply
> >>cannot be ignored.
> >
> >Actually as I remember these older pianos actually had less
> >inharmonicity because the string tension was less. Maybe one of
> >the physics people or piano tuners here can chime in.
>
> Here's the thread I was remembering from crazy_music. According
> to John, tension improves harmonicity while thickness makes it
> worse...
>
> >[Carl Lumma:]
> >>>>Hmm. I thought that higher-tension strings actually behave more
> >>>>harmonically. Maybe JdL can help us out here.
> >
> >[I wrote:]
> >>>The inharmonicity of piano strings is due to limited bending
> >>>flexibility, so that higher harmonics have an effectively higher
> >>>spring constant to push against than they would if the string
were
> >>>infinitely flexible.
> >
> >[Carl:]
> >>Right.
> >
> >[JdL:]
> >>>This implies that any _given_ string is more harmonic at higher
> >>>tension than at low (bending flexibility is relatively less
> >>>important).
> >
> >[Carl:]
> >>Ah, that's what I never understood.
> >
> >[JdL:]
> >>>But, as tensions go up, so must the thickness of the
> >>>string that will take the tension without breaking.
> >
> >[Carl:]
> >>Really? Think the move from iron and brass to steel may have
> >>helped?
> >
> >Helped in that iron/steel can take more stress than brass, so the
> >strings can be thinner.
> >
> >[JdL:]
> >>>Since a thicker string has bending stiffness that increases
faster
> >>>than string area (assuming a uniform cross-section), the
statement
> >>>that higher tensions lead to greater inharmonicity is correct, I
> >>>believe.
> >
> >[Carl:]
> >>Why, then, did pianos evolve higher and higher string tension?
> >>More amplitude?
> >
> >That and longer sustain, I believe. We should get someone who's a
> >bigger expert in pianos to comment; I'm getting beyond my field of
> >knowledge here.
>
> -Carl

"[increasing the tension] had to be done with caution in the old
wooden-frame piano, since the combined tension of 200 strings impose
a great strain on a wooden structure. The modern steel frame can,
however, support a total tension of about 30 tons with safety, so
that piano-wires can now be screwed up to tensions which were
formerly quite impracticable."
James Jeans - 'Science and Music'

🔗Jeff Olliff <jolliff@dslnorthwest.net>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > I wrote:
> > >There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or
> > to a
> > > monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that
> > matching unisons is a
> > > rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the
> > standard, the
> > > less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats
> begin
> > to slow down
> > > and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner is
> > unable, without
> > > further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat
from
> the
> > standard.
> >
> > Peter Wakefield Sault responds:
> > >>I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only
> when
> > the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
> > disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the
beat
> is
> > of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all
intents
> > and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in
tune.<<
> >
> > Hmm, I think your intents and purposes might allow a
little
> more
> > tolerance than mine. You will not get a professional level ET
by
> matching
> > fundamentals to forks, (at least, not on more than one
particular
> instrument, since
> > the inharmonicity varies between sizes and brands).
> >
> > Sault again:
> > >>The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal
to
> the
> > forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing
> difficulties
> > that don't exist. <<
> >
> > Oh, the difficulties exist, I work with them daily. "Strings
are
> equal to
> > forks" isn't descriptive, because forks don't produce the
spectra
> that strings
> > do. All the fork will do is place a fundamental, but the
tempering
> of
> > intervals is measured by the interaction of their partials.
Forks
> can't get one
> > closer than an approximation.
> >
> > >>To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
> > tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any
> scientific
> > basis to what you say. <<
> >
> > The frequencies produced by strings are inharmonic, which is
the
> term used
> > to describe the non-linear departure from even mulitples of the
> fundamental
> > that the partials exhibit. I KNOW there is scientific basis of
> this, I see it
> > every day.
> >
> > >> Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
> > don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing
Chopin
> I
> > don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that is
> what
> > the composer intended. >>
> >
> > I make a good living from tuning equal temperament in
> recording,
> > performance, and broadcast venues. For me, it is a tool,
nothing
> more. It is
> > certainly an ideal from the scientific perspective, but
musically,
> it is simply the
> > result of an average. If we had been born with 20 fingers and
huge
> hands, I
> > don't think ET would have been more than a passing fancy on the
way
> to 19 ET or
> > something else. There is nothing magical about a 14 cent third,
> and there is
> > something stultifying about having them all the same.
> > Chopin in ET is rather bland when compared with something
like
> the Moore &
> > Co. tuning or Broadwood tunings that Jorgensen has published.
> There is a
> > difference when the texture of a varied and highly tempered
harmony
> supports a
> > melodic line of pure fifths, and this doesn't happen in ET.
> Chopin's choice of
> > key also exhibits a strong correlation to the ascending
dissonance
> found in
> > well-temperaments. This correlation is exactly opposite of
> Beethoven and
> > Mozart's.
> > I have even recorded Chopin on a DeMorgan tuning, which is
the
> reverse of
> > the normal well-temperament format, and I think it is even
blander
> than ET!
> > ET isn't as damaging for Chopin as it is for Beethoven, Haydn,
> etal, but once
> > an ear has become familiar with the WT palette, the increase in
> brilliance and
> > contrast found in a WT does wonderful things for Chopin's
music.
> To some, it
> > makes no difference, to others, it is very evident.
> > Ed Foote RPT
> > http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> > <A
>
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.htm
l
> ">
> > MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>
>
> Do you have a reference? My reference (James Jeans 'Science and
> Music') has just explained to me (again!) the reason why it is
> physically impossible for a harmonic on a vibrating string to be
> anything other than a whole number multiple of the fundamental. I
> have a vague recollection from somewhere, something to do with
> guitars, that after being struck or plucked, the fundamental
itself
> drops in frequency during the first part of the decay - a reason
for
> not hitting strings too hard. I think that must be what you are
> talking about.

Benade (Paul, I think), Introduction to Musical Acoustics, is a
scientific tour of many instrument classes, including stringed
keyboards, with much appeal to experimentation. A fun book too, out
in paper from Dover. The guy loved his work, and was a good
teacher. Not sure what others think about it, but he answered my
questions, in particular the one at hand, inharmonicity from the
piano. I wondered for many years why ET was tolerable on the piano,
but not on synths and earlier instruments. Another interesting
class of instruments covered is the drums, with a fine explanation
of why tympani sound like tones, despite their harmonically disjunct
modes of vibration. And Bill Sethares on this list has taken what
we're calling inharmonicity to a general theory of what scales are
harmonious starting from whatever oddly arranged partials (if I may
attempt an amateur summary).

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Olliff" <jolliff@d...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > > I wrote:
> > > >There are two problems with tuning to either a set of forks or
> > > to a
> > > > monochord, or other instrument. The primary problem is that
> > > matching unisons is a
> > > > rather imprecise method. The closer the note approaches the
> > > standard, the
> > > > less information there is for the tuner to use, ie, the beats
> > begin
> > > to slow down
> > > > and at some point, disappear. When this happens, the tuner
is
> > > unable, without
> > > > further checks, to tell if they are slightly sharp or flat
> from
> > the
> > > standard.
> > >
> > > Peter Wakefield Sault responds:
> > > >>I am aware of this difficulty. However, as you say it is only
> > when
> > > the beats *begin* to disappear, not when they have actually
> > > disappeared. When no beats whatsoever is present, or when the
> beat
> > is
> > > of such a low frequency as to be indetectable, then to all
> intents
> > > and purposes the two sources are identical or prefectly in
> tune.<<
> > >
> > > Hmm, I think your intents and purposes might allow a
> little
> > more
> > > tolerance than mine. You will not get a professional level ET
> by
> > matching
> > > fundamentals to forks, (at least, not on more than one
> particular
> > instrument, since
> > > the inharmonicity varies between sizes and brands).
> > >
> > > Sault again:
> > > >>The tuning forks were ET. Therefore if the strings are equal
> to
> > the
> > > forks then the strings are ET. You seem to be inventing
> > difficulties
> > > that don't exist. <<
> > >
> > > Oh, the difficulties exist, I work with them daily. "Strings
> are
> > equal to
> > > forks" isn't descriptive, because forks don't produce the
> spectra
> > that strings
> > > do. All the fork will do is place a fundamental, but the
> tempering
> > of
> > > intervals is measured by the interaction of their partials.
> Forks
> > can't get one
> > > closer than an approximation.
> > >
> > > >>To say that strings are "inharmonic" (i.e. out of
> > > tune) just doesn't make sense. I don't think there is any
> > scientific
> > > basis to what you say. <<
> > >
> > > The frequencies produced by strings are inharmonic, which is
> the
> > term used
> > > to describe the non-linear departure from even mulitples of the
> > fundamental
> > > that the partials exhibit. I KNOW there is scientific basis of
> > this, I see it
> > > every day.
> > >
> > > >> Moreover, the forks worked for me. I just
> > > don't have your prejudice against ET and since I was playing
> Chopin
> > I
> > > don't think there's any axe to grind over whether or not that
is
> > what
> > > the composer intended. >>
> > >
> > > I make a good living from tuning equal temperament in
> > recording,
> > > performance, and broadcast venues. For me, it is a tool,
> nothing
> > more. It is
> > > certainly an ideal from the scientific perspective, but
> musically,
> > it is simply the
> > > result of an average. If we had been born with 20 fingers and
> huge
> > hands, I
> > > don't think ET would have been more than a passing fancy on the
> way
> > to 19 ET or
> > > something else. There is nothing magical about a 14 cent
third,
> > and there is
> > > something stultifying about having them all the same.
> > > Chopin in ET is rather bland when compared with something
> like
> > the Moore &
> > > Co. tuning or Broadwood tunings that Jorgensen has published.
> > There is a
> > > difference when the texture of a varied and highly tempered
> harmony
> > supports a
> > > melodic line of pure fifths, and this doesn't happen in ET.
> > Chopin's choice of
> > > key also exhibits a strong correlation to the ascending
> dissonance
> > found in
> > > well-temperaments. This correlation is exactly opposite of
> > Beethoven and
> > > Mozart's.
> > > I have even recorded Chopin on a DeMorgan tuning, which is
> the
> > reverse of
> > > the normal well-temperament format, and I think it is even
> blander
> > than ET!
> > > ET isn't as damaging for Chopin as it is for Beethoven, Haydn,
> > etal, but once
> > > an ear has become familiar with the WT palette, the increase in
> > brilliance and
> > > contrast found in a WT does wonderful things for Chopin's
> music.
> > To some, it
> > > makes no difference, to others, it is very evident.
> > > Ed Foote RPT
> > > http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> > > www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
> > > <A
> >
>
HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.htm
> l
> > ">
> > > MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>
> >
> > Do you have a reference? My reference (James Jeans 'Science and
> > Music') has just explained to me (again!) the reason why it is
> > physically impossible for a harmonic on a vibrating string to be
> > anything other than a whole number multiple of the fundamental. I
> > have a vague recollection from somewhere, something to do with
> > guitars, that after being struck or plucked, the fundamental
> itself
> > drops in frequency during the first part of the decay - a reason
> for
> > not hitting strings too hard. I think that must be what you are
> > talking about.
>
> Benade (Paul, I think), Introduction to Musical Acoustics, is a
> scientific tour of many instrument classes, including stringed
> keyboards, with much appeal to experimentation. A fun book too,
out
> in paper from Dover. The guy loved his work, and was a good
> teacher. Not sure what others think about it, but he answered my
> questions, in particular the one at hand, inharmonicity from the
> piano. I wondered for many years why ET was tolerable on the
piano,
> but not on synths and earlier instruments. Another interesting
> class of instruments covered is the drums, with a fine explanation
> of why tympani sound like tones, despite their harmonically
disjunct
> modes of vibration. And Bill Sethares on this list has taken what
> we're calling inharmonicity to a general theory of what scales are
> harmonious starting from whatever oddly arranged partials (if I may
> attempt an amateur summary).

Thankyou Jeff. I found the title inside the front of 'Science and
Music', my edition of which is also a Dover book. It is 'Fundamentals
of Musical Acoustics' by Arthur H. Benade. And Amazon has a copy...

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z...> wrote:
> Joseph Pehrson wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault"
<sault@c...>
>
> >>Hi Joseph
> >>
> >>How do you measure the beats?
> >>
> >>Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > ***This is an excellent question, Peter and, in fact, a good
instance
> > of why people should question what they learn in school since, in
> > fact, this was never explained to me! :)
> >
> > I just had a table of numbers and followed those. Maybe Ed Foote
or
> > one of the professional piano tuners on this list can tell us how
> > these lists of beats for equal temperament are derived for
tuning...
> >
> > JP
>
> No idea about the derivation, but...
>
> The appropriate tool would have been a pendulum, and before
> the metronom (an upside down pendulum) a tempo was just set
> by giving a string length (and a doctor might have used it
> to count pulses). It works OK if you want to set an (any)
> equal beating temperamant, but only one beat rate out of
> infinite possibilities will give you the as-good-as equal
> temperament mentioned above in the thread. And no use noting
> down a pendulum length found by trial and error, since there
> were no tuning standards in terms of frequency.
>
> klaus

That is a good enough explanation, Klaus and thankyou for it. It is
possible to extrapolate from this explanation that while there may
not have been any standards in terms of frequency until the 18th
century, frequencies can, however, be calculated from measured beats
in the following manner, using the Law of Pythagoras. If two strings
of equal gauge under equal tension are set up to have an interval of,
say, 199:200 by setting their lengths to that proportion and the
resulting beat is measured by pendulum to be 2Hz then we can know
that the respective frequencies of the two vibrations are 398Hz and
400Hz. Having ascertained this then, also by the Law of Pythagoras,
we can calculate the vibration number of any length of string of the
same gauge under the same tension. That Pythagoras, and his
predecessors for that matter, knew they were dealing with vibrations
is undeniable since the vibrations of a string can be observed with
the eye sufficiently well, especially at low frequencies, to be able
to see what is going on. Personally I do not believe that Pythagoras
was the inventor of the monochord - I think it highly likely that he
brought one back from Babylon.

Peter

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

hi Johnny, Kurt, and Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/14/03 6:47:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> sault@c... writes:
>
>
> > Personally I do not believe that Pythagoras
> > was the inventor of the monochord - I think it highly
> > likely that he brought one back from Babylon.
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
> I think you are correct, maybe older still, if that's
> possible. Pythagoras achieved his great reputation on
> the backs of others. The Ionian region was brimming
> with info for him to present to the Italians, and other
> Greeks.

in fact, it's quite possible that an actual person named
Pythagoras never existed, or at least not in the form that
we think he did (great mathematician, etc.). in any case,
i've read arguments both defending and refuting this idea.

around 100 AD there was a wave of neo-Pythagoreanism thruout
the Roman Empire, which by that time included all of Greece.
this basically amounted to a religion, and Pythagoras become
the same kind of legendary figure as Jesus and Gautama Buddha.

Kurt, you criticized my "Speculations on Sumerian Tuning"
by rightly emphasizing that their theoretical instrument
of choice was the lyre. however, your statement that the
monochord didn't exist cannot be proven.

i agree with both Peter and Johnny on this. if it's true
that Pythagoras brought the monochord back with him from
Babylon, then i'll bet all the money i have that the
Babylonians got it from the Sumerians ... as they did
with everything else in their culture except their Akkadian
language.

-monz

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
>
> Can we all agree that it would be more useful to not simply hit
reply and keep
> the subject heading if in fact the body of the post changes
subjects?
>
> I, for one, like to be able to parse the tuning list for subjects
that I
> either was part of, or new subjects that are of interest to me. To
have to
> wade through 100's of posts called "odien 1-003" but find there are
100's of
> ideas presented is very time consuming....
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

Perhaps Yahoo! can be persuaded to add an indexing function to
discussion groups. The Internet is part of the problem here - there's
just too much happening too fast. As I commented when I first joined
the group, it would be impossible for me to wade through 49,000 posts
to get 'up to date' with everything. And who would want me or anyone
asking questions about post #1234? If a set of index words could be
defined, thus excluding all except musicological and/or technical
terms then a meaningful index could be auto-generated. It would also,
or alternatively, be good to have a group search facility, whereby
all 49,000 posts could be searched for a keyword or keywords. Again,
that would be down to Yahoo!. I am sure they would respond favourably
to such a request although it may take some time for them to
implement it.

Google responded favourably to my request for a 'translate more'
button in their language services, which presently cut of after the
first 1500 words, leaving one excluded from the rest of a text.
However, once again, it will be a while before such a facility
arrives.

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/14/03 8:10 PM, monz <monz@attglobal.net> wrote:

> hi Johnny, Kurt, and Peter,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>> In a message dated 12/14/03 6:47:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>> sault@c... writes:
>>
>>
>>> Personally I do not believe that Pythagoras
>>> was the inventor of the monochord - I think it highly
>>> likely that he brought one back from Babylon.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>> I think you are correct, maybe older still, if that's
>> possible. Pythagoras achieved his great reputation on
>> the backs of others. The Ionian region was brimming
>> with info for him to present to the Italians, and other
>> Greeks.
>
>
>
> in fact, it's quite possible that an actual person named
> Pythagoras never existed, or at least not in the form that
> we think he did (great mathematician, etc.). in any case,
> i've read arguments both defending and refuting this idea.
>
> around 100 AD there was a wave of neo-Pythagoreanism thruout
> the Roman Empire, which by that time included all of Greece.
> this basically amounted to a religion, and Pythagoras become
> the same kind of legendary figure as Jesus and Gautama Buddha.
>
> Kurt, you criticized my "Speculations on Sumerian Tuning"
> by rightly emphasizing that their theoretical instrument
> of choice was the lyre. however, your statement that the
> monochord didn't exist cannot be proven.

Not me, I don't think. klaus maybe?

-Kurt

> i agree with both Peter and Johnny on this. if it's true
> that Pythagoras brought the monochord back with him from
> Babylon, then i'll bet all the money i have that the
> Babylonians got it from the Sumerians ... as they did
> with everything else in their culture except their Akkadian
> language.
>
>
>
> -monz

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

on 12/14/03 10:37 PM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>> Can we all agree that it would be more useful to not simply hit
>> reply and keep the subject heading if in fact the body of the post
>> changes subjects?
>
> I'm all for it. Kurt doesn't like it though.

Well, I like the second part though:

Don't keep the subject heading if in fact the body of the post changes
subjects.

But this is hard when things are fast and furious, as Peter pointed out.

Furthermore, I keep having this trouble when I change subjects: someone
should have already changed subjects. I can change subject on my reply, but
it is too late, because someone else replies to the original subject and now
the thread is split in two.

In short this only helps if everyone does it. But many people seem
uninterested in doing this. However, I'm glad to agitate for it again and
again if there are enough interested that it is worth repeatedly reminding
the rest.

> However, there is
> there are the following headers...
>
> References: <brjc6p+l952@eGroups.com>
> In-Reply-To: <brjc6p+l952@eGroups.com>
>
> ...which people like Kurt could use.

Yes, if only they (we) had an email client that was smart enough.

> The trick then would be
> to hit reply and then change the subject. This also keeps things
> threaded on the web interface, I think.

Yes, the point is that for different systems of keeping track of threads,
some go by the subject, and some go by the In-Reply-To link. So it is good
to use the email subject in a way that is helpful for tracking the thread.

Actually it would help if we could find a good email archiving system, which
does smart things with threading, and use it! This doesn't help when
working in the local email client.

However it is conceivable that a good archiving system would even permit
doing web-based replies, or even non-web based replies via embedded email
links, so that people would not have to use the yahoo system at all. Of
course there is a little spam problem there - the system would need to
provide accounts and passwords. But I hever realized before that the use of
yahoo as the web mail interface could be made optional. Am I really right
in this thinking?

Of course this would not help for messages that were sent before the new
archiving system was started.

>
>> I, for one, like to be able to parse the tuning list for subjects
>> that I either was part of, or new subjects that are of interest to
>> me.
>
> Try a search?

Of course the yahoo message search capability seems miraculously useless, at
least in my experience. But I do searches in my own tunings archives. This
works well for me.

>
> -Carl

Announcement of radio programme

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@xxx.xx

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@xxx.xx

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗Kees van Prooijen <kees@dnai.com>

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Maximiliano G. Miranda Zanetti <giordanobruno76@yahoo.com.ar>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗a440a@aol.com

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗kraig grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗a440a@aol.com

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Jeff Olliff <jolliff@dslnorthwest.net>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@z.zgs.de>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗Kurt Bigler <kkb@breathsense.com>

🔗monz <monz@attglobal.net>

🔗Peter Frazer <paf@easynet.co.uk>

🔗monz@attglobal.net

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>