Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum CIRCULAR HARMONIC SYSTEM - CHAS

Stopper, do you want me to start a "Stopper Vs Chas" Topic for you?

..."We probably have a different perception of the reality regarding this.
Relevance and validity are two slightly different things."...

Tell us Stopper, if you want to describe "only-pure" 19 root of three's relevance, why do not you do it?

..."You can gain this (ET scales ratio) with Mazzola's general tuning formula as i mentioned already.
Again, Chas model is valid here, but not relevant as new."...

Stopper, do not stop elaborating.

Basic Chas is: (3 - Δ)^(1/19) = (4 + (Δ*s))^(1/24)

For s = 1
Δ = 0.0021253899646...
Scale incremental ratio = 1.0594865443501...

Have you seen Chas ratio before?

You write:..."I figured out too, that the model of the natural form of the fifth circle equation i am using to illustrate my tuning model can exactly take the Chas model form for the harmonic case. By replacing the constants with variables (which is equivalent to Mazzolas general model) every inifinite scale can be done as with Chas."...

Good for you, you too have now figured out.

..."Your paper with it´s grossly wrong statements about interval progression inversion for the harmonic case and the valid but inevident form of the equal beating duodecime-double-octave equal temperament over other forms of equal temperament..."...

For me, you have lost your bearings. I talk about "inversion" for Chas preparatory tuning, and I talk about equal beating 12ths and 15ths as a result of partials interrelations.

...is a blame for yourself and for the the anonymous co-authors of the GRIM group, as they did not recognize them before making the paper publicly available."...

What is needed for interrelating all partials, say for playing all partials and coherently stretch all intervals, is a double-octave module. This gains Chas intermodular set, together with the proportional stretch curves for all intervals.

Where is the blame? Why do you blame "anonymous co-authors of the GRIM group"? This is the GRIM group:

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Chi__siamo.htm

Prof.ssa Maria Elena Ajello Liceo Scientifico Cannizzaro Palermo tel. 091-6250651
marilina@katamail.com
Prof. Carmelo Arena Liceo Scientifico "Cannizzaro" Palermo tel. 091 347495
c.arena@libero.it
Prof.ssa Paola Brigalia Dottoranda tel. 3471353082
pbrigaglia@math.unipa.it
Prof. Benedetto Di Paola Assegnista MAT/04 tel. 091 23891053
dipaola@math.unipa.it
Prof.ssa. Maria Lucia Lo Cicero Dottoranda
locicero@math.unipa.it
Dott. Giuliano D'Eredità Dottorando
deredita@math.unipa.it
Prof. Santi George Dottorando
grpsanti@gmail.com
Prof. Luigi Menna Dottorando
luigimenna@yahoo.it
Dott. Mario Ferreri Membro Aggregato tel.091-6681188
mario.ferreri1@tin.it
Prof.ssa Daniela Galante PhD, Conservatorio di Musica di Stato V. Bellini di Palermo tel. 091 421405
danifranco@alice.it
Prof.ssa Brigida Grillo ITC "Libero Grassi" Palermo tel 091-587723
gribic@katamail.com
Prof.ssa Rosa La Rosa (Scuola Media "V.Emanuele" Palermo) tel.091-6681188
mario.ferreri1@tin.it
Prof.ssa Daniela LoVerde tel.091-6819342
Prof.ssa Elsa Malisani PhD, Scuola Media Ribera (AG) tel.0925-544006
schillacimalisani@tiscalinet.it
Prof.ssa. Gianna Manno PhD, Membro Aggregato tel. 328 7414678
giamanno@libero.it
Prof. Gaetano Militello Istituto Tecnico V.E. III Palermo tel. 091-307568
gaetanomilitello@libero.it
Prof.ssa Cristina Mostacci Membro Aggregato tel.0923-921064
cmostac@libero.it
Prof.ssa Francesca Niceta Membro Aggregato tel.091-6852255
fniceta@libero.it
Prof. Perez Emanuele Liceo Scientifico "Einstein" Palermo tel. 091-6823877
messier.104@tin.it
Prof.Francesco Pintaldi
Membro Aggregato tel.091-6523500
pintaldi@libero.it
Prof.ssa Marcella Profumo Liceo Scientifico "Cannizzaro" Palermo tel.091-543174
mprofumo@aliceposta.it
Prof. Aldo Scimone PhD, Istituto Magistrale "F. Aprile" Palermo tel.091-305324
aldo.scimone@libero.it
Prof.ssa Claudia Sortino PhD, Membro Aggregato tel 329 0903595
cla.noc@libero.it
Prof.ssa Natalia Visalli Liceo Classico "Garibaldi" Palermo tel.091-345669
natalia.visalli@gmail.com
Prof.ssa Teresa Marino Dipartimento Matematica Università di Palermo tel. 091-23891073
marino@math.unipa.it
Prof.ssa Grazia Indovina Dipartimento Matematica Università di Palermo tel.091-308016
indovina@math.unipa.it
Prof.Pietro Nastasi Dipartimento Matematica Università di Palermo tel.091-6477272
nastasi@math.unipa.it

Chas author, as you can read in Chas research report, is me. Now please go and enjoy yourself.

a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy):

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

CHAS Tuning MP3 (Granpianoman) on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv
.

Stopper, we cross-posted.

You were writing:

..."I don't see a point where I contradicted myself. I did not took back any of my statements regarding the higher degree of symmetry which is causing purity in tempered chords in the temperament I prefer."...

It was you and only you talking about "symmetries of highest degree...", Stopper, highest and not higher, like you are now saying.

..."(a purity you are avoiding in your form)"...

Exactly Stopper, what opens to a pure "intermodular set" where all partials are interrelated and all intervals have their precise beat curve.

..."Beside that I always said there is an infinite number with mathematical valid equal temperaments including yours possible."...

You have always said...? Nop, it was only last December.

..."Where do you see a contradiction..."...

I see a contradiction when you go from "My model has perfect symmetry in abscence of inharmonicity, while CHAS or other ET solutions have not." last June, to "...all harmonic ET models (including Chas model, Chas EB-ET form and mindless octaves, Cordiers pure fifth temperament, my own etc.) are mathematically valid...”, last December.

..."when I am falsifying the arguments you give to make your temperament more evident than others?"...

Do you believe? I'm not interested in competitions with other researchers. I replied you about this long ago.

..."What caused me to assume your paper to be a scientific hoax where the sheer numbers of wrong statements inside your report (see my falsifications)."...

You see Stopper, now you would be admitting what you had assumed then, when you addressed your readers towards a scientific hoax...and only now you state about wrong statements...what is this?...oh, it is 2.57, goodnight.

a.c.
.

If you find this a relevant contradicition, then interpret this difference as a typo and i mean of course highest degree.


All equal temperaments have precise beat curves, this is not an exclusive feature of Chas.
Purity is well defined as abscence of beats. You contradict yourself here.


Another wrong statement of your side.
Read my post from June, 9, 09:
"Chas (in the abscence of onharmonicity, where your s or s/s1 equals 1) is only one possible stretch point among let´s say millions of solutions between the 12th root of two (standard ET) and the 7th root of 1,5 (Cordier ET).Chas (in the abscence of onharmonicity, where your s or s/s1 equals 1) is only one possible stretch point among let´s say millions of solutions between the 12th root of two (standard ET) and the 7th root of 1,5 (Cordier ET)."



We are speaking in circles here. I told you about the the difference between mathematical validity and relevance of one form over others. (what i am referring here)



I was not talking about competition between researchers here. I was questioning your argumentation about evidence of Chas form over other forms of temperament.


Defintively not a contradicition. I have taken notice that you denied that option and that your paper is not a hoax. So i had to precise out the wrong statements.

No, I have had almost 8 months of smoke and mirrors, but I was not decieved. I just have finally decided that your deception is deliberate; that you were not decieved, yourself.

Stopper, as I could explain, in my opinion you are not a reliable conversation partner. I take care about my face, so you can do about your face, but please stop arguing by insinuations.

...“All equal temperaments have precise beat curves, this is not an exclusive feature of Chas.
Purity is well defined as abscence of beats. You contradict yourself here.”...

What is the theoretical curve of 19 root of three on 12ths? And theoretical 12 root of two’s on octaves? You may well know about theoretical “abscence of beats”.

...“Another wrong statement of your side.
Read my post from June, 9, 09:
"Chas (in the abscence of onharmonicity, where your s or s/s1 equals 1) is only one possible stretch point among let´s say millions of solutions between the 12th root of two (standard ET) and the 7th root of 1,5 (Cordier ET).Chas (in the abscence of onharmonicity, where your s or s/s1 equals 1) is only one possible stretch point among let´s say millions of solutions between the 12th root of two (standard ET) and the 7th root of 1,5 (Cordier ET)."...

Yes, I confirm, I can not read about “validity”. There, you were only banalizing ETs “stretch”, while you may well understand that Chas ± Δ gains a very precise ET. This, in my opinion, may be what you do not like.

...“We are speaking in circles here. I told you about the the difference between mathematical validity and relevance of one form over others. (what i am referring here)”...

No circles but ways, Stopper. My way is describing Chas Theory’s relevance, a way that could also be your way for what concerns 19 root of three. But you have more interest in acting as a destroyer, as a detractor and as a defamer.

...“I was not talking about competition between researchers here. I was questioning your argumentation about evidence of Chas form over other forms of temperament.”...

I doubt you do not understand Chas relevance, and this doubting of mine suggests me to let TIME do his/her job. Nevertheless, yesterday I wrote you what you need for interrelating all partials and for intermodulating a 12 semitones set.

...“I have taken notice that you denied that option and that your paper is not a hoax. So i had to precise out the wrong statements. Although opting to the hoax variant could serve you well to keep your face.”...

How to tell you that I do not want any more of this staff? How to tell you that I find you too arrogant, deceitful and contorted. Please, keep on going for 19th root of three ET, as I shall keep on going for Chas ET Temperament and Chas Preparatory Tuning. Please write about your discovery, its relevance or supremacy or what ever you like in a different Topic.

a.c.

Jeff, you write:..."No, I have had almost 8 months of smoke and mirrors, but I was not decieved. I just have finally decided that your deception is deliberate; that you were not decieved, yourself."...

Good, at least you could make up your mind. Let me know when you make it up with Chas ET Theory's equation and with Chas ET ratio.

a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy):

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

CHAS Tuning MP3 (Granpianoman) on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv
.

Oh, I had made up my mind about that almost 8 months ago!

Jeff, you write:..."Oh, I had made up my mind about that almost 8 months ago!"...

This is what makes me shiver, how you could be so shabby and yet double-headed.

a.c.

.

Get real. I have been critical of your paper all along. I posted in an effort to educate you.

This is not necessary, thank you.



If have kindly invited you to participate at the italian convention last year, but you denied. There you have had the chance to listen what i was saying and presenting about, (sound, numbers and figures).
What i present in what form and when is my own decision. And the form of a public internet forum is definitively not what i will choose for.


Mindless octaves equal temperament model of Bill Bremmer has been described before Chas:
http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/2001-December/098956.html

quote from link, Bremmer: "Essentially, it is an *Equal Beating* compromise between the Double Octave
and the Octave and Fifth."

It has been described whithout mathematical formalization, but that doesn´t matter. Did you know that many historical tunings where described without formalization and still were usually constributed to their inventors and not to their formal describers?
I recommend you for reading:
Andreas Werckmeister "Musicalische Temperatur" (Quedlinburg 1691)

Beside that i don´t see much need to advocate a tuning for someone else.
If you arrive to get this temperament contributed to you, so be it.



Fine, so you can accept that your model is just a different form of the fifth circle.



It seems your are not longer familiar with your own statements in your paper.

Quote from section 4.6 of Chas paper:
"The difference curve for these intervals inverts its progression at degree 51. This inversion is determined by the s variable, unique to this model. The same effect, we will see below, is found in degrees relating to ratios 3:2, 3:1, etc."



So Chas author is you alone. Why do sign your paper with "CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy)" then?

Why do count up every member of the GRIM group here if not one person of the group was involved in your paper?

My statement about anonymous co-authors of the group was because not one person of the group co-signed your paper. You don´t want to say that every single member of the group has reviewed your paper?
And if so and they did not recognized the wrong statements they had blamed themselves.
And if they were not involved with your paper, you have blamed the group, but surely not me.

Let me remeber that that you opened your response to my objective falsifications in an abusive way.


You know well that there are way more intervals in those two tunings beside the octaves or duodecimes, which all have a distinct beat curve.


I was talking of "solutions". And any solution implies validity.
Did you know that the delta is just a fraction of the pythagorean comma?
The pythagorean comma can of course be determined very exactly. And thus the distribution of the pythagorean comma between duodecimes and double octaves. But with the same precision the pythagorean comma can be distributed in any other tuning. This is not an exclusive feature of Chas.


And i was just falsifiying the relevance in an objective and provable way. This is a normal process of reviewing in science. Just because you don´t like the results, the reviewer is not a destroyer a detractor and a defamer. What you accuse me to be just because of objective reviewing, is exactly what you are yourself then.


I can live with that fact, but such statements are inadequate here.

Stopper,

Any added line on your part, as any other contortion of yours can only consolidate the relevance of Chas ET Temperament Theory.

I thank you and I wish you all the best,

a.c.

Jeff, you write: “Get real. I have been critical of your paper all along. I posted in an effort to educate you.”

Yes, I think you have indeed. I thank you and I wish you all the best,

a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy):

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

CHAS Tuning MP3 (Granpianoman) on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv
.

I thank you too and i hope you may benefit from our discourse for improvements on your paper, which is the sense of critical reviewing in it´s best case.

… “I thank you too and i hope you may benefit from our discourse for improvements on your paper, which is the sense of critical reviewing in it´s best case.”

CHECK * Best case formula:
1 educator + 1 aspiring salesman = Sense of critical review

Stopper, you are very generous in trying to improve Chas paper. Let me suggest you though to publish your own scientific paper on only-pure 12ths. Only after that you may offer in actual fact your "careful" know-how.

In general and out of my own experience, never confuse yourself with what you are not, in other words: let men of science talk about science and let academic Professors improve scientific papers.

All the best,

a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy):

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

CHAS Tuning MP3 (Granpianoman) on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv
.

By the way i did a publication about the 19th root of three when i was invited as a contributor for the scientific symposium "Incontro a Bolzano: Scale e harmonie" in italy 1991. (And it has been reviewed by professors) So i am happy that you can accept my offer now.

I wish you good luck.

Please, when will you post other recordings of piano tuned by the 2 methods ?

I tried again the fifth inversion of the Alfredo s method, and I dont get what it provide, still thinking.

Anyway I finally had a piano with enough stretch in the medium range, which to my ears is not really the case on the Steinway S recording (at 5 bps the C E 10th or M6, that is too slow to my ears.

So I guess I did not use the same temperament method in the end.


To me, a good part of the lively sensation we have in a piano tuning is due to the acceleration of stretch .

It catch our ears and keep them alive. Then a too large span for tempering is not ideal (but between 12th and 2 octave sounds good to me).

I guess also that purity is good when it is really pure, if it is only sort of pure the effect is not there as much.
But purity is somehow at the opposite of tempering so I understand it may be impossible to really reconciliate we only can go for a set of compromizing as it have been said often there.

Well you can also use a predetermined curve as with a PT100 or some old generation EDT, and put that on the piano saying that justness is only a question of having that curve there and not the piano affair. It will work as well, the piano will be "tuned" and playeable. Our ears seemm to recognize very fast any kind of organisation as soon it is used in a consistent way all along the scale.

I understand that definition of ET is something more evolved those days than it was.

I'll accept any definition, the intention is to have an instrument playeable that can use its own harmony to some point.

What counts in the end is how it tones and how well one can play with the instrument, and other instruments as well.

All of your definitions will be accepted with time, no doubt about that, does not mean that the tuners will change the way they learn to tune (because it is difficult enough to learn to settle pins and manipulate the hammer) but it will or it have yet do something (as Cordier's ideas have also do something, and even Bill Bremmer's option)

Very comfortable to me to look at it from that distance !

Hopefully practically when I tune a piano I am in a known land, and I see generally no many ways to have it sounding right, we have a little discussion with the instrument and found a cordial agreement.

And that is for that I am paid, but probably more often to correct voicing or regulation behaviour (at last this knowledge is way less common, and the time window is not as tight as for the yearly tuning so work conditions are way better !).

Stopper, this is what I wrote:

Stopper, you are very generous in trying to improve Chas paper. Let me suggest you though to publish your own scientific paper on only-pure 12ths. Only after that you may offer in actual fact your "careful" know-how.

In general and out of my own experience, never confuse yourself with what you are not, in other words: let men of science talk about science and let academic Professors improve scientific papers.

Now you write: "By the way i did a publication about the 19th root of three when i was invited as a contributor for the scientific symposium "Incontro a Bolzano: Scale e harmonie" in italy 1991. (And it has been reviewed by professors) So i am happy that you can accept my offer now."

Please, do not misunderstand. If you are happy with your publication, you can now write more about why and how tuning pure 12ths ET, possibly in your own Topic.

About the rest, this is my advice: never confuse yourself with what you are not, in other words: let men of science talk about science and let academic Professors improve scientific papers.

In simpler words, I suggest you to offer your professional expertise and nothing else.

Say you understand these simple words, I thank you and I too wish you good luck.

Say you do not understand these simple words, I thank you and I too wish you good luck.

a.c.

CHAS THEORY - RESEARCH REPORT BY G.R.I.M. (Department of Mathematics, University of Palermo, Italy):

http://math.unipa.it/~grim/Quaderno19_Capurso_09_engl.pdf

CHAS Tuning MP3 (Granpianoman) on a Steinway S (5’ 1”, 155 cm)
http://www.box.net/shared/od0d7506cv
.

Hello Kamin,

it is not that easy for me, for the time being, to arrange all things and provide more recordings. But I will as soon as I can.

..."I tried again the fifth inversion of the Alfredo s method, and I dont get what it provide, still thinking."...

The way I set 5ths is relating two 5ths with two 4ths and A3-A4 octave (first 4 tuning steps, on centre strings).

..."To me, a good part of the lively sensation we have in a piano tuning is due to the acceleration of stretch."...

To me too.

..."It catch our ears and keep them alive. Then a too large span for tempering is not ideal (but between 12th and 2 octave sounds good to me)."

For concert tuning my temperament span (possibly) is 88 keys.

..."I guess also that purity is good when it is really pure, if it is only sort of pure the effect is not there as much.
But purity is somehow at the opposite of tempering so I understand it may be impossible to really reconciliate we only can go for a set of compromizing as it have been said often there."...

Chas approach and my tuning is pro-beats. I go for beats, just propensity and slow progressive beats for octaves, but still beats. More than "compromising" in the sense of "making the best of a bad job", I compromise in the sense that I draw the progressive beat curve for all intervals.

..."Our ears seemm to recognize very fast any kind of organisation as soon it is used in a consistent way all along the scale."...

I agree, our ear (in my opinion) also recognize an higher degree of harmonicity and resonance, especially on a comparative basis.

..."What counts in the end is how it tones and how well one can play with the instrument, and other instruments as well."...

I agree, too often!

..."All of your definitions will be accepted with time, no doubt about that, does not mean that the tuners will change the way they learn to tune (because it is difficult enough to learn to settle pins and manipulate the hammer)...

In my opinion, the ET zero-beating octave's theory has lost any reference for the tuner, listen to the frustration of many colleagues, to their silence embarrassement when they have to describe 4ths, 5ths, octaves, 12ths and 15ths tuning...would you believe that 12ths and 15ths can routinely invert? This shows you the average degree of confusion, and this is why Chas ET Theory is good news: it describes a scientifically correct model that can finally represent a reliable reference. You can aim at Chas in practice and gain what the Theory describes.

..."Hopefully practically when I tune a piano I am in a known land, and I see generally no many ways to have it sounding right, we have a little discussion with the instrument and found a cordial agreement."...

That is good.

..."And that is for that I am paid, but probably more often to correct voicing or regulation behaviour (at last this knowledge is way less common, and the time window is not as tight as for the yearly tuning so work conditions are way better !)."...

Yeah, correct. The whole thing is "sound production and control", a combination of all dynamics, keyboard's reliability and accuracy, action's timing, strings and structure dynamics. For me, a world of proportions and exactitude.

Best regards,

a.c.
.

There is no law that reserves reviewing scientific theories to academic professors. You have choosen to publish your paper on a public internet forum and you can not expect that your theory will be accepted like the infallibility of the pope.



That is, what i have done with my falsifications of parts of your paper. I have professional expertise in the field of tuning including tuning theory. I repeat myself again as you do often and in simple words: There is no law that reserves reviewing scientific theories to academic professors.

And don´t you see a contradiction in your point of view that reviewing should be reserved to professors, and for yourself as a non-professor you claim the right to create a new theory?

And remember, the hoax example proves what can pass professor reviewing.

As you are a friend of simple words, please answer me this simple question:

Do you agree at least with one of my falsifications?

I have noticed in the file info of the most recent version of your paper, that it has been created by Prof. Filippo Spagnolo.

May be he can give a statement here concerning my three falsifiction points?

Mr. Stopper:

You may be interested in part of a post on May 25, 2009 in this Topic where Alfredo sort of answered some questions about the publishing of his paper:

”Tooner,

You ask: "Was it checked by the math department?"

Well, what do you think?

"Did you have to defend the paper to a board of professors?"

I had to rewrite the article 3 times, to explain things that on the way had resulted obscure. It took me almost 2 years.

"Did anyone at the University understand it?"

Yes, Chas maths is not that difficult and I'll demonstrate that.

"Did they agree with it?"

They checked Chas maths without playing any other role. We'd better talk about how could anyone disagree, don't you think?”