Thank you, GP! Yes, sorry, I know we've talked about it before. I was hoping to get some impressions "straight from the horses mouth," as it were, from Gregg, along the same lines as when Patrick talked about playing the Bach/Siloti, where he said sometimes the tempreament would push him forward, and other times it would cause him to linger. I wondered about Gregg's particular dialogue with your piano.




Thank you, Bill! Indeed, my mom always said, "A good pianist can make any piano sound good. You have to. You can't carry your piano on your back!" I was just curious about Gregg's visceral reactions to EBVT III. Also, does he prefer the temperament (like I do) and use it/request it in every possible application?

I am asking these questions from a "performer's" perspective, of course.

Thanks!

--Andy

Have been busy with work...taking a short break.

Andy, I don't think Gregg has access to a computer.

Going through all the recordings we made when Bill was here, there is a lot more music that I have not posted yet.... here is an Ampico piano roll selection showing how EBBT III sounds in this type of composition.

This was an Ampico roll I played, but I am not remembering the exact name of the piece. If anyone knows the title, please let me know. I believe the composer is Brahms?


Brahms? on the Ampico in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/vv5rodn6vs

More music to come!

Here is another great improv from Patrick...listen to how beautiful the intervals and harmonies sound in EBVT III...and of course it's enhanced by Bill's excellent tuning and unisons.

Patrick improvising a short piece in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/8nh2hfye4o


Patrick playing a different set of diminished chords on the M&H in EBVT III...this is the "unplugged" version http://www.box.net/shared/8rqur2fdag

Here is another beautiful example of EBVT III, this time it's the composer playing his own piece. Ernst von Dohnanyi playing "Konzertstuden" (Concert Study) This is a wonderful Ampico roll. If you can, listen to it with headphones....the last 1/4 of the piece, the bass resonance is phenomenal...Bill's re-tuning of his EBVT III this time around, especially in the bass section, which I understand he stretched even more, has made a big difference in the amount of resonance the piano has now...it is so rich and resonant, it's amazing. The recording can only let you hear so much, in person, it's even more incredible.

I am still amazed at what they were able to do back in the 1920's with this technology. If you can imagine living back then, and hearing a piano reproduce like this, it must have been mind-boggling to people.

"Konzertstuden" (Concert Study) by E.V.Dohnanyi on the Ampico in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/ktyp9u27iy

Yet another example of how EBVT III fits the music...."Dizzy Fingers" a novelty piece from the 1920's composed and played by Zez Confrey on the Ampico.
....there is a reason he called it "Dizzy Fingers"

"Dizzy Fingers" composed and played by Zez Confrey on the Ampico in EBVT III (unplugged version) http://www.box.net/shared/7a3z0fnldh

"Pack Up Your Sins And Go To The Devil" by Irving Berlin...a 3 person 6 hand piano arrangement by "The Original Piano Trio" which just sparkles in EBVT III.

http://www.box.net/shared/2rjrcp8q33

Here is change of pace..Gregg playing a Windam Hill/George Winston piece on the M&H in EBVT III. http://www.box.net/shared/9u964ir1dq

So far, as you can hear, we have a good selection of music from different periods. It shows that EBVT III is right at home with all of them.

I would have posted this sooner, but did not have the title until now.

Gregg playing Shubert's Impromtu #4. http://www.box.net/shared/8jop8v3t5n

So many different moods in this piece which EBVT III clearly brings out. It's in the key of A flat, which should not sound good in EBVT III according to the "ET" way of thinking.

OK. I know that many of you have been waiting for me to post my feelings with baited breath about the EBVT III so, here I am, ready or not!

Bill Bremmer came out to my house this weekend to show me personally, his EBVT III tuning. He tuned the piano himself but for the tenor and treble unison's which I did. Mostly because I do not (did not) now how to tune in EBVT III. I watched and listened intently for a very long time.

Before I go any further though, I have chosen for whatever it is worth, to say this to all of you first.

Whatever tuning WE choose to use, it is not up to me, nor is it up to you, to tell the rest of us which one is right and which one is wrong. There are far to many ways as I have said many times to reach the same street sign or goal in tuning. It is your or my choice to use whatever tuning method we choose to use. Whether that method be ET., EBVT III, Mean-tone, or, whatever tone...... I will not tell you which one to use. You may have noted this in all of my prior posts. I may say which one I use or which one I prefer but, that does not mean my way is the only way because it is not.

Up until now, I have always used ET and, I will continue to use ET. However, I will also begin using EBVT III too. Why? Because, I like it. I may even convert over to it but not until I first learn how to properly tune it myself and try it on many clients to see what their reaction will be. That's just me.

After spending a full day tuning with Bill, listening to his completed tuning of EBVT III and then spending about an hour playing on the piano, sometimes with Bill singing along, I have come to the conclusion that I love it. I really like it a lot. It gives a rich, full meaningful, resounding, reverberating sound in the bass and throughout the piano in a different perspective much more-so than ET does IN MY OPINION.

It is one thing to listen to a piano tuning with a headset and the music coming from a computer. It is quite another, to listen to a piano tuned in EBVT III in person, with two technicians being the tuners of the piano.

Now, if I were to check 3rds etc., comparing them to an ET tuning, of course, the 3rds and 10ths will be different. Some will be faster, some slower, some will be more like what I am accustomed to hearing in ET. However, it is important to note that a piano tuned in EBVT III is NOT MEANT to be checked with the traditional ET methods as the piano is NOT tuned in ET., it is tuned in EBVT III.

I was rather pleasantly surprised when playing the piano, despite everything I just mentioned in the above paragraph, that the music just blended together. It harmonized beautifully; the chording sounded wonderful; it was extremely pleasing to the ear and fun to play the piano. The music meshed perfectly. It did not matter what we played. Both of us being technicians gave us a slight advantage because if we found something drifting, we corrected it on the spot. (Usually) The advantage of being a technician. My A/C would kick on and off too which can also affect pitch and alter things a tad.

I even asked my family individually including my oldest son Jerry who works with me and has a pretty good ear whether he liked THIS tuning, or, what we usually tune in, ET. I then proceeded to play chords very slowly, so he could hear and listen carefully as could I all the way up from the bass to the high treble a whole bunch of various keys. The response of each family member, a total of 3 was that they liked EBVT III better. My oldest son liked it a lot better. I asked him if he was just saying that and he said no, it sounds more sweet and more pure.

So, there you have my take on the EBVT III. I will begin practicing on it tomorrow.

Glad you like it, Jerry! I've tuned a good number of pianos in EBVT3 since March for many of my small, but growing clientele. Some like, some do not. It is great to be able to tune them both with a fair amount of respectability.

With your experience and the most excellent one-on-one training session you just received you will hit the ground running!


Glen

Hi Jerry,

Glad you had a positive experience with EBVT III. I had the same thing happen...the tone of the piano opened up and I was hearing wonderfully musical things happening in each piece I played, that I had never heard before. On this last tuning Bill did, the bass really opened up, and the treble just sparkles. I have said this before...there is an 'earthy' feel to the sound....it reaches down deep...perhaps this is partly due to how great the bass is, and how well it works with the rest of the piano. It's hard to describe. Hearing EBVT III live is the best for sure!

In reading your comments, it brings to mind high-end loudspeakers, amps, pre-amps and mics. They all have their unique sound for the same music...one person likes this loudspeaker with this amp, another a different one. I think the same thing can be said for ET/EBVT III or any other temperament for that matter.

If I were a pro-tuner, I would, as you mentioned Jerry, be happy to have EBVT III in my tool bag!


That being said, here are a few popular pieces played by the LX system and another Windam Hill/George Winston piece played by Gregg in EBVT III. These were recorded on the 2nd day of the Tune-a-thon. Jerry's comments on how EBVT III sounds is exactly what I hear on my piano and why I made all these recordings. Take a listen to these and I think you will hear what we are so enthused about. Headphones are better.

1. "Where Do I Begin" played on the LX by Bob Ralston. http://www.box.net/shared/t7mtzev72p (from about 2:15 to the end...beautiful!)

2. Not sure of the title of this one. Bob Ralston again. http://www.box.net/shared/yr3qx680m7

3. Gregg playing Windam Hill/G.Winston the M&Hamlin http://www.box.net/shared/bvolkdcx70 (beautifully played here by Gregg, it shows how incredibly pure and clean sounding the harmonies are in EBVT III, and how the piano resonates along with that pure sound)

I am so glad that all of you have been so pleased. It should be noted that in both cases of GP and Jerry Groot, I also applied what I know to be the most advanced octave stretching techniques that I know. I have always felt that the EBVT III does have its own, unique properties which give it some merit that distinguishes it from other temperaments. The octave stretching techniques, however will bring about the best of any temperament.

Since the EBVT III is the virtual equivalent of the Johann Georg Neidhardt "Circulating Temperament No. 2 of 1724", perhaps some of what is written about that in the book by Murray Barbour, "Tuning and Temperament a Historical Survey" is in order. Thanks to BDB for letting us know this book is in print in a paperback edition from Amazon and only costs a few bucks. It is a worthy part of any technician's library.

A quote from page 170 of the book:

<<In the second and third of Neidhardt's "circulating" temperaments, [Neidhardt chose the word "circulating" to mean a temperament in which all keys were playable and in which one could freely modulate, this included, of course, ET.], six 5ths are tempered by 1/12 comma [1.8 cents narrow, just slightly more tempered than in ET], and three each are pure or tempered by 1/6 comma [3.6 cents narrow, about one and a half as much as in ET].>>

From page 178 & 179: ("Good" Temperaments)

<<It is easy to see how the modifications of the Pythagorean, just, or meantone system by the halving of tones as in the systems of Grammateus, Ganassi, or Artusi, would make these systems much more like ET. But it is more difficult to see what Werkmeister, Neidhardt and Marpurg were driving at in their multifarious attempts to distribute the comma unequally among the twelve 5ths.>>

<<If...our ideal is ET, we shall praise highly some of the beautifully symmetric systems of Marpurg and Neidhardt. But the trouble is that they are too good! [sic]. The deviations for them are lower than for a piano allegedly tuned in ET by the most skillful tuner. ...such a method might have been easier than that pursued today.>>

<<It will be of interest to consider which of his twenty systems Neidhardt considered the best. [Neidhardt said], "In my opinion, the first [of the circulating temperaments] is, for the most part, suitable for a village, the second [the EBVT III] for a town, the third for a city and the fourth for a court". The fourth was ET; the mean deviations of the other temperaments had been 4.0, 3.3 and 2.7 cents, respectively.>>

******************************************************

Whereas in ET, semitones (1/2 steps) increase equally by 100 cents each like this:

C:0
C#:100
D:200
D#:300
E:400
F:500
F#:600
G:700
G#:800
A:900
A#:1000
B:1100
C: 1200

The Cents progression of the Neidhardt Circulating Temperament No. 2 varies only slightly, with two notes remaining exactly the same.
[From table 155, page 169]
C:0
C#:96
D:196
D#:298
E:394
F:500 [same as ET]
F#:596
G:698
G#:796
A:894
A#:1000 [same as ET]
B:1098
C:1200

Upon analyzing the EBVT III, Owen Jorgensen wrote to me in a private letter dated 12-23-07:

<<Enclosed is the analysis of your EBVT...Later, I realized that the EBVT III was almost the same as the Circulating Temperament No. 2 published by Neidhardt in 1724. The final page of the enclosed reveals in rounded cents figures how closely related the two temperaments are. The EBVT III should probably be named the EBVT III-Neidhardt temperament.>>

Jorgensen calculated the EBVT III to have this set of figures which he labeled, "The distances from C in rounded whole numbers of cents".

C:0
C#:95
D:197
D#:298
E:396
F:498
F#:596
G:699
G#:797
A:896
A#:999
B:1096
C:1200

Jorgensen also had this to say in his letter based upon research he had done:

<<Johann Georg Neidhardt (c. 1685-1739) was a contemporary with J.S. Bach. He was German theorist, composer, organist and Kopellmeister who specialized in writing about circulating temperaments including ET. He was the most influential writer on temperaments during his lifetime. He published over two dozen temperaments [Barbour had said 20], and his Circulating Temperament No. 2 was among his favorites. Although he did not care for ET, his writings were credited for laying the technical and mathematical foundations for practical development of ET in the future.>>

As for the several temperament ideas I have had that use the equal beating formula and an F3-F4 octave from an A fork, Jorgensen also had this to say in his letter of December, 2007:

<<For what they accomplish, your tunings are remarkable for how easy they are to tune. They will prove to be very valuable for this reason. Neidhardt relied on monochords to do his tunings and probably did not do this by ear. However, Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) gave all the credit for the fact that musicians could perform in all the keys to Neidhardt along with Werkmeister. Bach was not mentioned for this. (See Barbour, page 194)>>

In reading from that page and the next, I see the confusion between "well tempered" and "equally tempered" addressed. It says that composers such as Bull, Gibbons, Frescobaldi and Scarlatti composed works that exceeded the bounds of meantone by several scale degrees. It asked the question, "Were they, then using ET?" Barbour says, "That question is difficult to answer, especially since there was a type of tuning that would have been fairly satisfactory in many of these cases.

Barbour cites the German phrase, "die gleichschwebende Temperatur" which he offers the translation, "the equally beating temperament". On the next page, it says, <<Werkmeister said [of the remote keys], "It would be very easy to let the thirds, Db-F, Gb-Bb, Ab-C beat less than a full comma [not so fast]; but since thereby the other, more frequently used thirds obtain too much [beating], it is better that the latter [the C-E, G-B, F-A, D-F#, Bb-D, A-C#, Eb-G] should remain purer, and the harshness be placed upon those that are used the least."

Elsewhere, Werkmeister described ET with fair accuracy, but demurred, "I have hitherto not been able to approve this idea, because I would rather have the diatonic [white] keys purer." And so to Werkmeister, "well-tuned" meant "playable in all keys-but better in the keys more frequently used.">>

Today, we have thoroughly tested the EBVT III in the remote keys including Debussy in D-flat and now, George Winston in B Major. There is yet another Windom Hill piece in six flats. Gregg identified it as neither G-flat Major nor E-flat minor but as the Dorian mode. GP posted it earlier as this:

Here is change of pace..Gregg playing a Windam Hill/George Winston piece on the M&H in EBVT III. http://www.box.net/shared/9u964ir1dq

I think EBVT3 is closer to Neidhardt III (the city one) than to II.

Below the temperament diagrams for all three temperaments.


Neidhardt 2


Neidhardt 3


EBVT 3

Kees

Nice piece, and the temperament works well! Not to add to the confusion, but... The piece is in Bb minor, rooted firmly in the Aeolian mode (commonly known as 'natural minor'). Five flats, that is.

That's indeed the words of a wise woman, right there!

Forgive me Kees, but I need to ask about the diagram structure. I have just read them visually (remembering that ET was symmetrical), but I'm not sure I'm able to read the subtleties at all.

1) Where are the given reference - that is, where do I start reading from to get the values for M3, m3, P5 aso

2) The written out numbers at the edge of the cycle would refer to the size of the 5th in the key that precedes it clockwise? Giving pure 5ths for Neidhardt 3 and EBVT III?

3) What is the green dotted circle representing? I'd like it to be major thirds, but I can't get it to match.

4) Same thing with the solid purple circle - what does it represent (and from which offset, which might already be answered in my question 1).

5) Don't you find it confusing that the size of 5ths are withdrawn on the same line that M3s are added to? I know that is perfectly logical (because that is what is happening around the cycle... narrow 5ths -> wide 3rds), but I have problems reading "a chain reaction" on the same line.

Forgive me if I sound stupid, but these overlayed/superimposed diagrams are sometimes getting the best of me.

I believe this was posted before, but it won't hurt to repeat the manual page below.

To read off the deviation of PM3/Pm3's just add up the (usually negative) deviations from the fifths spanning it and add 21.6. (I wish the display was in commas instead of cents, but scala doesn't have that option.)

========================================
The Temperament Radar button changes the diagram into Paul Poletti's quality
radar and back. A description is found in his article "Temperaments for
dummies". It shows the overall severity of a temperament by indicating the
out-of-tuneness of the thirds and fifths. The generator degree is best set to
the fifth or fourth, but it can be changed. Quoted from the article:
"Whether the interval is too wide or too narrow is immaterial; the graphs
merely show how 'bad' each interval is. The centre of the graphic represents a
pure interval. The dotted green line represents an average of Equal Tempered
major (14 cents wider than pure) and minor thirds (16 cents narrower than
pure), and the solid purple line is again an average of Pythagorean major and
minor thirds. The yellow squares showing the qualities of the fifths are not
plotted to the same scale as the thirds (in terms of cents), but rather
expanded so that the same reference lines act as general guides to the degree
of tempering in terms of subjective perception. For fifths, the green dotted
line represents a 1/6th Pythagorean comma tempering - an example of a very
'good' sounding fifth - and the solid purple line represents a 1/4 Syntonic
tempering - a fifth which is approaching the border of acceptability (though
slightly flatter fifths are found in some severe meantone tunings). The
interval color coding is the same as in the graph above. The more circular and
centered the traces for the thirds, the closer to equal and the less
differentiation in key quality. The more oval or irregularly-shaped and the
more eccentric, the more severe and the greater the key differentiation. Note
that in the meantones and their derivatives, certain intervals are literally
'off the map'. The quality radar also shows the effect upon thirds caused by
the tempering of fifths. Start on any note and examine the tempering of the
fifths upon that note and the next three (going clockwise); the quality of the
major third on the starting note is the cumulative result of the observed
tempering. The same process can be seen for minor thirds by going two notes
counter-clockwise around the circle."
Well-temperaments can be identified by looking whether the major and minor
thirds lie within the purple circle, so if both the blue and red polygons do
not cross this circle, the scale is a well-temperament, if the octave is 2/1
also.
Small orange squares indicate harmonic sevenths, if the deviation is smaller
than a septimal comma (27 cents). If the best minor and major thirds do not
add up to the best fifth, then this alternate fifth along with the other minor
third in the major triad, and major third in the minor triad will also be
shown. These can be distinguished because they are not connected with red and
blue polygon segments.

========================================
Kees

Thanks, Kees, I got it now.

It was the green dotted line and the purple line having two different functions/scalings (for the 5ths and the 3rds) that threw me off.

Kees,

Thanks a lot! You must have the Barbour book too. I like the idea that the EBVT III is the "city" temperament, the one the people like and the No. 4 is the "arbitrated settlement" in which all parties are equally dissatisfied.

On my old website: http://web.archive.org/web/20031203185748/www.billbremmer.com/EBVTOrigins.html

I mused about how the idea had become the city's temperament. It has also been the town of Spring Green, Wisonsin's temperament since 1992 where all of the pianos at the Frank Lloyd Wright estate and virtually every piano in that town has been tuned in one form or the other of the EBVT since then.

I could never make as much sense out of the graphs you often offer as I could those by Jason Kanter but I must say that the one you put up of the EBVT III looks prettier to me than either the Neidhardt II or III.

I would underscore the fact that Jorgensen said he probably used a monochord to tune his ideas. A Strobe tuner would have been better, lol. Had Neidhardt invited me to show him the the equal beating method I use, as Jerry Groot did, he would have hugged me, took me out for dinner and smoked cigars and drank brandy from fine, crystal snifters until the night was over.

The equal beating process of temperament construction has two very important values: First, it is a replicable process. No guessing. Secondly, the coupled string effect which I believe Jeff (Tooner) identified (and which I thank him infinitely for, if he is correct) which effectively "hides" beats and produces a sensation of clarity, cannot be underestimated in its positive effect upon the music, whichever music that is.

Thanks for your clarification, Patrick. Somehow, I had remembered 6 flats, but 5 is good enough for me. Modern music is not supposed to work in anything but ET with anything more than four sharps or flats, at least according to what many people presume.

The piano did not explode when this music was played!

There was a piece that Gregg clearly identified as the Dorian mode and I remember clearly that it was in six flats. Perhaps GP has not yet posted it.

I like your old website. I notice you have a page on Werckmeister. Paul Poletti has translated an interesting article by that fellow: Werckmeister translation.
Most interestingly he states that no fifth can be more off than about 1/8 comma (3 cents)! The temperament he (vaguely) describes is quite extreme in terms of thirds (many larger than Pythagorean) but very nice in terms of fifths.

Also note he starts his last paragraph with "I never cease to be amazed when someone asserts..." which is a phrase I've seen you use quite a few times here. Maybe you are Werckmeisters reincarnation!

Kees

While having EBVT3 loaded in scala I generated a set of equal beating tests. These are of course for the idealized tuning without inharmonicity. I wonder how they hold up in practice. The octave numbers scala uses are 4 less than normal, so e.g. G#.-1 is G#3 etc. They all have beat rates within 2% of each other.

Equal beating tests of 5/4 5/3 3/2
3 10 Eb.0 Bb.0 -0.3688 Hz. = -4 3 G#.-1 Eb.0 -0.3716 Hz.
8 15 G#.0 Eb.1 -0.7433 Hz. = 15 22 Eb.1 Bb.1 -0.7375 Hz.
4 11 E.0 B.0 -0.8970 Hz. = -3 4 A.-1 E.0 -0.8990 Hz.
-6 1 F#.-1 C#.0 -0.9443 Hz. = -1 6 B.-1 F#.0 -0.9451 Hz.
0 7 C.0 G.0 -1.1982 Hz. = -2 5 Bb.-1 F.0 -1.1999 Hz.
2 9 D.0 A.0 -1.4289 Hz. = -5 2 G.-1 D.0 -1.4259 Hz.
9 16 A.0 E.1 -1.7980 Hz. = 16 23 E.1 B.1 -1.7941 Hz.
6 13 F#.0 C#.1 -1.8885 Hz. = 11 18 B.0 F#.1 -1.8903 Hz.
12 19 C.1 G.1 -2.3965 Hz. = 10 17 Bb.0 F.1 -2.3998 Hz.
7 14 G.0 D.1 -2.8518 Hz. = 14 21 D.1 A.1 -2.8578 Hz.
-5 -1 G.-1 B.-1 5.9857 Hz. = -7 -3 F.-1 A.-1 5.9878 Hz.
-11 -7 C#.-1 F.-1 6.7440 Hz. = -9 -5 Eb.-1 G.-1 6.8533 Hz.
-9 -5 Eb.-1 G.-1 6.8533 Hz. = -5 4 G.-1 E.0 6.8828 Hz.
-8 1 E.-1 C#.0 7.0393 Hz. = -8 -4 E.-1 G#.-1 7.0417 Hz.
0 4 C.0 E.0 7.1800 Hz. = -8 -4 E.-1 G#.-1 7.0417 Hz.
-3 1 A.-1 C#.0 7.8873 Hz. = -2 2 Bb.-1 D.0 7.8891 Hz.
-2 2 Bb.-1 D.0 7.8891 Hz. = -11 -2 C#.-1 Bb.-1 7.9439 Hz.
-11 -2 C#.-1 Bb.-1 7.9439 Hz. = -9 0 Eb.-1 C.0 8.0515 Hz.
0 9 C.0 A.0 8.9780 Hz. = -6 -2 F#.-1 Bb.-1 9.0181 Hz.
-4 5 G#.-1 F.0 10.1129 Hz.= -4 0 G#.-1 C.0 10.1160 Hz.
2 6 D.0 F#.0 10.6530 Hz.= -2 7 Bb.-1 G.0 10.7409 Hz.
-2 7 Bb.-1 G.0 10.7409 Hz.= -1 3 B.-1 Eb.0 10.9405 Hz.
7 11 G.0 B.0 11.9714 Hz.= 5 9 F.0 A.0 11.9757 Hz.
1 5 C#.0 F.0 13.4879 Hz.= 3 7 Eb.0 G.0 13.7066 Hz.
3 7 Eb.0 G.0 13.7066 Hz.= 7 16 G.0 E.1 13.7655 Hz.
4 13 E.0 C#.1 14.0786 Hz.= 4 8 E.0 G#.0 14.0834 Hz.
4 8 E.0 G#.0 14.0834 Hz.= 12 16 C.1 E.1 14.3599 Hz.
9 13 A.0 C#.1 15.7747 Hz.= 10 14 Bb.0 D.1 15.7783 Hz.
10 14 Bb.0 D.1 15.7783 Hz.= 1 10 C#.0 Bb.0 15.8877 Hz.

Kees

Continuing with more of the music that was recorded in EBVT III over the July 4th weekend.

A little "Boogie Woogie" in EBVT III played on the LX by Bob Ralston http://www.box.net/shared/a2t5x80mk9

Let me help you to slightly reactivate/correct your memory:
You got knowledge about this effect from the various discussions about the principles of the OnlyPure method (invented in 2004) on pianotech and PW and from my tuning class you participated in 2008. Mr. Deutschle adopted to the principles after participating the discussions about the OnlyPure method on pianotech and PW.

Bernhard Stopper

I wonder how EBVT III would do in a typical school setting in an orchestra or music room where other instruments are tuned to it or played with it?

Jer,

I tune most of the school pianos here in Madison, elementary, middle, high school and tech college. They have all been tuned in the EBVT since 1992. Two generations of kids have been raised on it here.

Bernhard,

I discovered on my own, somehow, that if I tuned a double octave and compared it to the octave-5th, using the sostenuto pedal, it created beautiful octaves before I took my tuning exam in 1983 which qualified me to be an examiner trainee. No one else that I knew of had ever used the technique. When I mentioned it to a few people, they thought it was crazy, so I kept quiet about it for a long time.

It did, however, earn me nearly flawless scores in the Bass and Treble. Only my high treble had a few more points off for being too sharp. That was long before Pianotech ever started (1995) and long before I ever had a computer (1997).

Until the Summer of 1989, I used the idea to tune in ET. From August, 1989 to present, I have not tuned in ET for the public. I found that the same idea worked just as well for non-ET as it did for ET.

I saw a tuning demonstration by Steve Fairchild sometime in the late 80's or early 90's where he used two accu-tuners to show that the double octave was slightly wide and the octave-5th was slightly narrow. That was also long before Pianotech and long before I ever had a computer.

I wrote this article in the late 90's or early 2000's, long before I had ever heard your name:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612045555/www.billbremmer.com/TemperedOctaves.htm

By the time you were on Pianotech, I had already stopped participating on it for at least a year. I did, however sometimes read the archives. I saw that you were being attacked, mostly by a certain mister R.B. who claimed to have "invented" the idea before you. He engaged in much ridicule and mockery of you which I thought was quite unfair.

I also saw that other people said that they already did what you were saying. You had wanted to patent the idea and license its use. Others said they would never buy that license but they would continue to tune the way they already were and thought it was no different from what you were saying.

So, I had a lot of sympathy for the idea you were trying to promote. I never really read and absorbed all of your material. I only saw that we both had essentially the same idea or that they were at least, very close.

This takes nothing from you at all. To me, it only means, as I have tried to express before, that if a certain phenomenon exists, it will be discovered by those who take the time and trouble to explore new ideas.

That is why I was thrilled to learn that the idea I had for tempering the scale eventually ended up being a close approximation of one of Neidhardt's ideas that he wrote about theoretically nearly 300 years ago. The only thing I knew about Neidhardt was the name itself, nothing about his temperament ideas.

Even if I had seen what there is published about either Neidhart's #2 or 3 circulating temperaments, those would certainly not have led me down the path to discovery that I actually took. I used the equal beating concept I had learned from Owen Jorgensen's writings. The final result that closely approximate what Neidhardt did was merely a coincidence.

So, if what I have discovered on my own seems to closely or even exactly approximate the concepts you have developed, it is also merely a coincidence. As I have said, I have never really studied your writing thoroughly enough to say that I understand it. Far from taking your idea and calling it my own, I don't claim at all to have "invented" anything. I have only discovered what was always there and I have seen that you and others have too.

As far as I am concerned, you have the upper hand in this. You have created software to produce it, something I could never do. I have absolutely no idea how you would construct a temperament octave. I have my own ideas about that and have written extensive articles about what I discovered on my own.

A number of people have temperament construction ideas that begin with the contiguous Major thirds. I have copied none of them. I have only put together fragments of ideas I had read about here and there, combined them and then produced a few different strategies for tuning ET.

ET already exists in theory, of course. There are many ways to approach its construction. At the last convention, there were some 8 or so classes on tuning ET, each had its on angle and strategy. I attended Jim Coleman's "Bullet Proof" tuning class and Jack Stebbin's "Let the Piano Tell You" class. I learned a few important clues from each of them but did not understand either of them thoroughly, nor do I want to try to adopt either strategy, much less copy it and call it my own.

The Master Tunings for the exams are also another example where each person who conducts the Master Tuning does so in his own, unique way. When I have done it, I have always used my double octave and octave-5th comparison idea. When Jack Stebbins saw me do it at one such session, he was quite impressed at how I could come up with precisely the same results either aurally or electronically, down to 1/10 cent resolution.

Jack saw it and understood it but as far as I know, he never adopted the idea. I saw Randy Potter's eyebrows raise in amazement when I showed him the same thing. He told me later that he had well understood what I did but whether he will or has put it into his curriculum or not, I don't know.

The next time I conduct or participate in a Master Tuning, I will use the refinement in technique that I discovered on my own last week. If you have done the same or similar to that, I never knew about it. If you had demonstrated it wile I was there and assumed I had understood it and absorbed it. I had not. For me, it was just an idea that came to me, to play all related intervals at once, just to see what happened. When I did, I liked the idea. As Patrick said, he had already seen me do that in the Bass. That, I have done for many years, long before I had ever known of you.

We are friends, Bernhard. I am not taking your ideas from you and calling them my own. I do however, recognize that you have a solid concept which I would recommend to anyone to try. I would and have already recommended your software. I can only teach and share with others what I know how to do, not what you know how to do. If they are the same idea or nearly so, it is only a coincidence.

That´s fine Bill, let us keep that.


and

First you mention that you discovered that technical refinement only last week. In the second statement you mention, that you have used that principle already long before my work. Bare nonsense to me, as you contradict yourself with those two statements.


The technique of striking (at least) three notes at the same time consisting of fourths and fifths inside and outside an octave and trying to make their beats dissappear in the possible combinations has been first discussed on pianotech in 2004 (if i remember correctly, maybe 2005 but that doesn´t matter in this context) and later back and forth here in PW the last two years where you participated too.

I have demonstrated the principle of this technique while you participated my class.

Even if it is true that you really believe that you have found that principle on your own (because you may have not understood that principle immediately), it is ridiculous and embarrassing for you and me if you proceed to claim that you found this technique on your own while everybody including you can verify what has been discussed on pianotech and PW the last five years (where you participated at least in the last two years) on the matter.

Just for completeness, here is the link to the thread where this "new one week old refinement technique" has been discussed with your participation on PW:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/609596/Re:%20Stoppers%20temperament.html#Post609596

(By the way Gadzar was just guessing how the OnlyPure sequence may go, he never claimed to found it on his own)

I never questioned that you discovered your mindless octave concept before my work. It is different from my tuning, as you temper the twelfth and the double octave equally.

We are not discussing different temperaments here. We are discussing a technical refinement, which you have claimed that you found it on your own last week, which is identical to the principle i have invented in 2004 and where you had access to for at least over the last two years.

You are welcome to use this principle, adapt or modify (as you have done already) it to your own temperaments (ET or UT) and praise the sensational effects, as long as you quote the correct source.


Regards,

Bernhard Stopper

Bernhard,

Thank you for showing the discussion from a year and a half ago. I vaguely recall it. The fact is that most of the time, I use an ETD now and I know how to find the interval compromises I am looking for with it, lock them in and then use the ETD to stabilize the pitch. So, I have not been accustomed to doing strictly aural tunings for nearly 20 years now. I aurally verify, yes but to use the aural method of double octave and octave-5th compromise is way in my past because I know how to to the very same thing with the ETD.

The exception is the Bass which I have always tuned aurally. There, I have for as long as I can remember, long before I ever heard of you, played multiple notes as I described. When I used the double octave and octave-5th combination, I never have played all three or four notes together as I described that I found useful last week (and continuing this week). I did notice, as I said a year and a half ago, that when I played C4-E4 M3 and G3-E4 that were equal beating, the beats of both intervals became suppressed. I also noticed when I played a long C major chord, it sounded purer than any of the intervals really were. Both of these, I had discovered long before I had heard of you.

What I discovered last week was exactly what I said I discovered. When I found the point where two intervals were apparently equal beating, if I then played all three (or four, as the case may be) notes together, I could then hear if the note being tuned was the slightest amount off from optimum.

So, then I adopted a new (for me) way of expanding the temperament across the entire piano. What I actually began to do last week and am doing now, I had never done before in quite the same way. No discussion with you or anything I may have seen in your class ever came to mind.

What I do remember was the tool called a "spanner" which you tried to get me to use but I personally found it awkward to use and not what I really needed at all. That is not to say that others may find it useful. Indeed, Gadzar tried to convince me of that. The reason it was not useful to me is that I would routinely go back and forth between double octaves and octave-5ths. The spanner, as I remember, only played octave-5ths. I did not have any problem taking my hand off the tuning hammer, playing the interval I desired to hear, hold it with the sostenuto pedal and then put my hand back on the hammer and tune the desired note. That much has always been quick and routine for me and once again, I have done it that way since long before I have ever heard of you.

Now, I am simply adding more notes to be held with the sostenuto than I used to use and I find that quite useful. The utility of doing that, I indeed discovered for myself last week. It is a simple matter that I am sure we both understand and that any other person who understands tuning would too: If you are tuning F5 for example and you play together F3, A#3 and F4, all three notes have coincident partials with F5. Each one sends a strong, audible signal to the note being tuned, F5. Even if each of the three intervals is tempered but the coincident partials "couple", as Jeff believes (and I have strong reason now to believe that is what happens) and therefore no beat is heard, it stands to reason that there is a place where F5 would also couple with those three other pitches, also at a point where no beat is heard. Beginning at F6, now two more notes are added. F3, A#3, F4, A#4 and F5. All have partials coincident with F6.

If you had made this same discovery in 2004, then I congratulate you for it. You made it long before I did. If it is what you taught in your class, it is not something I remember. If I don't remember it, it is probably because I did not understand exactly what point you were trying to make at that time. That is where the language barrier may have been a problem. For that, I of course do not discredit you or fault you in any way.

I don't know enough German to even consider trying to talk about tuning in German. Although I can speak French and Spanish fluently, I believe I would be hard pressed to express myself clearly enough in either language for everyone to be able to understand and follow the points I am trying to make.

So, I am not trying to take ideas that you may have published and call them my own, nor do I claim to have "invented" anything. I have only discovered a new angle that builds upon techniques that I used to use long ago before I ever had an ETD.

Let me repeat what you where saying:

and

and in your last post

Opens the question why you used something you found last week to be so useful and sensational (as you mentioned correctly), so many years only for the bass. (Even if you were using ETD for the middle you could have done refinements with that technique). Nowhere in your written work we can read about that you were using something what you have found last week already for many years. It simply does not fit to your general habit (to share anything you are doing publicly), that you were using something that you did not talk about elsewhere in your work before.

First you mention that you discovered that technical refinement only last week. Later you mention, that you have used that principle already long before my work. As i said already, bare nonsense to me, as you contradict yourself again and again with those statements.

Quite normal if a new idea comes up, that there is always some response like "I have done this already long ago" (which i can ignore very well unless a proof is presented).

Quite often too, good ideas are often attempted to be taken over with that kind of arguments you have been using without contributing any credit for the source.

Regards,

Bernhard Stopper