Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum My Piano in EBVT III

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:

https://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

Bernard,

Bill's SAT's broke so he was forced to tune strictly by ear. Therefore, last week, Bill apparently discovered a different approach. That's my understanding of it.

Exactly, Jer. GP, congratulations on page 100 of this thread! My SAT IV was returned to me just 5 minutes ago by UPS. It is no longer "deaf"! I am eager to see how it reads three, four, five or more notes played together. I know how it reads them separately, I just wonder what it will do when slightly conflicting partials are all played at once. Will it say to tune the note being tuned the same as the ear says? I will report back tomorrow on that.

Great Bill! Given the recent discussion, I think we are all eager to challenge our ETD's in that same way (forcing them to read multiple notes)... it will be most interesting to see how they behave

I can hear mine asking me, "what the heck do you think I am anyway, bilingual?" Or, "Earlingual?"

Bill, thanks!

Who would have thought that a post about my piano in EBVT III would garner over 100,000 views!?...I certainly didn't.

There must be something to this EBVT III? hmmmmm

"EBVT is an easy way to tune something which is not ET" (ie., a mild WT), as Jeff put it.


An attractive idea, which however still needs to be demonstrated I think. If true, Neidhardt 3 should less pleasing than EBVT 3, despite its closeness in terms of M3's and P5's.

Theoretically I think the idea is sound. For example if you have simultaneously 3 bps in some interval and 2 bps in some other interval (or they could be in a single octave, say the 2:1 and 4:2 beats), the effective beat speed perceived would most likely be 6 bps. It's a 3 against 2 rythm which fits in a 6/8 bar with 6/8 = 60MM.

On the other hand if both intervals were beating at 4 bps even though both beat faster than 2 or 3 bps the perceived beat rate would be only 4 bps, which is less than 6.

If human musical perception is in accord with this theory is an open question I think.

Kees

Kees,

I doubt that a 3 bps and a 2 bps beat would "overlay" to form a smooth 6 bps beat. Yes, they fit into a 6/8 bar, with the 3 beats per second falling on 1, 3 and 5, and the 2 bps falling on 1 and 4, but nothing falls on 2 and 6!

The end-result, however, would probably still be "busier" than a clean 4 bps beat - agreed.

True, but the brain tends to fill in missing parts, creating the illusion of 6 bps. Anyways it was just an example to illustrate the general idea.

Kees

Took a little break from work and finally gave the M&H a thorough tuning from top to bottom using Bill's latest tuning figures and decided to give the LX a workout. This time I only used my Iphone Tunelab...the tuning turned out great. The overall sound is just beautiful. EBVT III sounds great with all types of music. Using my Zoom H4 set at 96/24bit, 2 Rode NT5 mics. The Korg is still at the repair shop I also used Patrick's mic configuration, thanks Patrick! The files are raw, no processing.

I am getting better at these unisons. I am happy to say, most of the unisons you are hearing, barring the very high treble, were done by ear. ....thanks to Bill's tip about listening through the sustain, I tune them differently now. Thanks Bill!

I have several files to post...here is the first one. Will also add the corresponding video on my YouTube page when I have more time.

This believe it or not, is from an Ampico piano roll! The roll was scanned and then encoded for the LX system by A.Robinson over in England.:)

"Reflets dans L'eau by Debussy http://www.box.net/shared/x6lz6cbnqx

GP, that sounds absolutely delicious! Michael La Point from the Appasionata project is coming to interview me Friday. I will be sure to include this Debussy on a CD I give him! Some snippet of it would make great music for the film!

We are closing in on 1000 responses to this thread!