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

Actually, a method used to tune pianos in the early 20th century was tested to the limits of the equipment available in the mid 20th century and was found to produce ET. Dr. White included this in his book.

Thanks Bill, I will try to do just that. I plan to record my Yamaha G2 in my home tuned in both ET and EBVT III, using identical mic positions, closing out as much of the 'randomness' as possible, going for only two factors: 1) the tuning, 2) the interpretation.

I will play some classical music, just to shut out the argument of 'playing the good notes, hiding the rest'...

I like the analogy of grayscale/color, that is very close to the way I experience ET/EBVT III. Both can be beautiful, and there is something esthetical about the mathematically symmetrical tuning (ET), but there is no question that the color palette of EBVT III makes the (sensible) pianist play the instrument in a different way.

Just out of curiosity, I sent the recording of the improvisation i did earlier (http://www.wingren.fi/patrick/public/ebvt02_main.mp3) to three tuners I know. None of them are participating here, and thus their input is kind of fresh to this discussion. I mentioned that I've started to tune EBVT III, listed references to your site, and asked for feedback.

• The first one (whom I've mentioned earlier) is a superb Steinway tech (trained at 57th st, NY). He has a very harmonic, aural approach to tuning. He just simply stated that he liked the tuning very much

• The second one is a tuner from Helsinki that I learn to know some 20 years ago. He replied (translated from finnish):
  
  "Hi, it sounds very nice - I can't grasp how you have been able to learn how to tune the piano like this by self-studies, and aurally too. You have a lot of talent, I already recognized that 20 years ago. Bill Bremmer's EBVT III works superbly, it sounds spacious and the spread gives a really nice feel. I have to explore that tuning and start practicing. I had a break in my tuning career for several years, but now again I'm getting interested in the profession that I left behind."

• The third tuner is a concert tuner, former fazioli tech, who tunes for a lot of the big names here in Finland (Olli Mustonen, for example). He replied (again, translated from finnish):
  
  "Hi, and thank's for your mail. I just listened to your playing and it sounded good. The intervals sounded tranquil, even at the outer ends of the piano. I still have to listen through my headphones, because my speakers don't give me enough lower bass. I have to explore this temperament myself."

Now, these are some pretty honest guys with as unbiased an input as you you might get. They all seemed very interested and eager to learn more about EBVT III. This is not to prove something right or wrong, I'm just giving a 'field report'. Anyway, them encouraging this temperament is a welcomed confirmation that there is something good going on here

HI Pat, nice to see you back.

And the school studio experiment ? 2 different pianos will give you less trouble.

To me 17 ths, double octaves and 12ths played along the scale will probably tell me much about the musicality of a tuning.

Easier to listen, I see your point about the construction in ET, I know we can have the envy to have a change.

Best regards

Isaac

Hi Isaac,

Yes that was (as you know) my original plan, but now I'm really attracted to the idea of tuning the same instrument with two different tunings, just to rule out everything else. Even though I have Yamaha grands lined up at the conservatory, they sound a bit different and that affects the overal color of the tuning, too!

PS did you get snow this week? Northern Italy (Vicenza) is caothic, from what I've heard.

Hi Pat, no, no snow, but I heard of an earthquake in Madrid , they say at the radio - then I understood it was because the Madrid foot ball club lost when playing against Lyon...

The journalist does not respect nothing !

I would be "afraid" to make 2 different tunings on the same piano for comparison purposes.

That will give you much work and in the end you will not be sure if a drift occur, unless you can play, and tweak each tuning until it is good enough, all pianos react and vary (even between the morning and the evening !)

Yes if the YAm of the conservatory are too much different in age that could be a concern, but also a way for you to hear them played by differnt persons (?).

Patrick, welcome, and I am glad you are joining this discussion.

Your improvisation recording is great. It's great to hear such clean unisons too. One can hear the multitude of colors in the tone and the richness that EBVT is able to produce. It's hard for me to imagine anyone not liking your recording/tuning. There is definitely something 'good' going on with EBVT III. I have heard it, Randy Potter heard it, my friends at my piano party heard it, and now your 3 tuner/tech friends have heard it.

As I mentioned before, I have nothing against ET, it is pleasing to the ear. EBVT III adds more dimensions to the sound, and brings out colors/harmonies that I don't hear in ET, yet it still remains beautiful, like in your recording. It's also very illuminating to hear EBVT III on a different piano.

Yesterday, I played some files on my Yamaha Disklaiver that I had been playing on the EBVT M&H RBB...it's a digital disklavier, no strings, and I have owned it for about 4 years now. It has Yamaha's tuning from their 9ft Concert Grand. The same file played on both pianos was like night and day. The Yamaha sounded flat, lifeless compared to the EBVT M&H RBB. I never noticed that much difference before, since I was tuning the M&H in ET. I kept looking at the Yamaha settings to see if I had something incorrect...lol. I much preferred the EBVT. As an experiment, I am going to take the digital out's of the Yamaha, and record a piece, then play the same piece on the RBB with EBVT III, then you can hear what I am talking about. It won't be like tuning the M&H in ET, then in EBVT III, but you will be able to hear what I am talking about.

I still have my older Rode NT5 mics, which I had not tried yet....last night, I connected them and recorded a few pieces. I am going to have clean up the tuning on the piano a bit, and will re-record them for a later posting. Different mic, slightly different result.

I look forward to your ET-EBVT III tunings!

I would like to try a variation on my tuning to replicate what you did here, except I tune without an ETD.

It also seems that there have been lots of descriptions of temperaments using 4ths and 5ths mainly. However, I use faster beating intervals as I was taught this produces a more exacting result.

I am wondering if I could make some simple changes to the parameters I currently use aurally to produce this tuning and therefore have a 'live sample' I could evaluate. Is this possible?

Just in case Bill or anyone would tell me what I should do differently in order to make the proper adjustments, I will provide my current temperament sequence and summary of beat rates:

I tune the temperament octave F3-F4, starting with a C fork.

A flat from the C (major 3rd)

F3 from C4 (5th)

F4 from F3 (octave)

A4 from F3 (major 3rd)

C#4 from A4 (major 3rd)

F#3 from c#4 (5th)

A#4 from F#3 (major 3rd)

D4 from A#4 (major 3rd)

G3 from D4 (5th)

B4 from G3 (major 3rd)

D#4 from B4 (major 3rd)

E4 from C4 (major 3rd)

This sequence allows for good comparison between the consecutive 3rds. The F3-A4 major 3rd starts out at 7 beats per second and the consecutive 3rds progress at about .5 beats per second so that the C4-E4 major 3rd is 10.5 beats per second.

I hope this summary is simple enough because it ought to be just as simple to make the variations needed.

I use the even progression of major 3rds as the absolute priority and let the 4ths and 5ths try and sound as clean as they can, which is pretty close to pure for the 5ths.

Does this temperament have a similar standard?

Thanks,

Nick

Jake, sorry, I forgot to answer your question...have got to do some errands etc...will come back later and address your questions about Zenph.

Nick, from the sound files you have posted, you could not improve the way you tune ET any more, in my opinion. An aural tuner these days that can truly perfect ET, especially using the sequence you posted is a rare occurrence. You have the natural ability that it takes to listen and adjust the intervals that it takes to tune a good ET. My recent work with other ET sequences has been an attempt to provide another scheme for those who have failed using traditional methods.

If you really want to find out what the EBVT III would sound like, all you have to do is follow the aural tuning directions on my website. Others have done it, Patrick from Finland and Rafael from Mexico city come to mind. I won't be offended if you do not like the results, just don't post ridicule and mockery as your answer.

You have seen that GP likes what I did for him. It has been quite a struggle to maintain that tuning, for sure. I can arrange a visit to you at your place of business and tune entirely aurally and show you how it is done, if you wish. If you are disappointed with the results, I will take it in stride because I know that you have become accustomed to the sound of ET.

I'm not expecting you to embrace the idea but if you do, so much the better. Even if you want to keep it as an alternative, that would be fine with me.

Isaac: Yes, that might be the cause of it - Lyon played very well!

I think I might do both the studio side-by-side setup and the single piano. To me both could be most interesting, and as I'm curious by nature... well, let's see what happens when I get started.

Grandpianoman: Thank you for your reply, and for the great effort you have put into your recordings! It is really good to get aural examples of something that is of aural nature, instead of just discussing it all from a theoretical point of view.

Likewise, I appreciate Isaacs and Alfredos recording work, I have yet to listen carefully to that. This is the web at its best - being able to exchange ideas, challenge, and stimulate each other!

Nick: As you tune aurally and are used to FBI's, I think you would have no problem getting the hang of EBVT. Bill Bremmer's tuning sequence starts from an A fork, but as the F3-C4 is a pure 5th you'd just need to shuffle the order in the first part of the sequence a little bit.

Here's Bill's sequence, it can be downloaded as a pdf file from his site (http://billbremmer.com/ebvt/summary_ebvt_sequences.pdf)



Note that if you stop at #14, you have EBVT I. To reach EBVT III, you go all the way through #16. Bill considers EBVT II (stopping at #15) obsolete these days, and advocates I or III.

EBVT III is milder and, to me, a very nice and colorful temperament that can be played regardless of genre or key signatures.

Hello Patrick,

I loved the sound file you posted and appreciated the comments from other people. I would be extremely interested to hear that Schubert Impromptu #4 as you have learned to play it first in ET, then in the EBVT III on the same piano. Record it first in ET, save the file, then tune that same piano in the EBVT III and practice the piece again, playing it however differently you may interpret it in the EBVT III and record that. Your comments about both experiences will be well appreciated.

One day, I would like to hear it again in the 1/7 Comma Meantone as I first did in 1995. I wonder how Peter Serkin would interpret that piece as opposed to all the lifeless recordings of it I have heard on You Tube?

Ron Koval: I understand that GP sent you the data of his tuning as he also did to Tooner. What I expect to hear is that it does not match in any way any expectations. When I showed the data from my 1998 tuning at the PTG Convention in Providence, RI to Dr. Sanderson, his first reaction was, "I have never seen numbers that looked like those."

Yet, as GP works with "those numbers", you hear the results. You know that I am within a day trip to your location. I can visit you, tune a fine piano the way that I would and explain everything to you. I have actually wanted to do that for a long time. I only need the invitation. I am interested to find out if there is a way that the Verituner could cope with the way I tune the octaves.

I will post here for all to see, the way I tune a late 19th Century restored Steinway (9 foot but I am not sure if it was a model C or D) for a regular customer in the Milwaukee suburbs. The lady hosts regular events in her in-home concert hall (you would have to see it to believe it) with the finest area performing musicians. I always tune her piano this way. I often use this basic model as a preliminary tuning for many pianos as I did with GP's but I never use the data for the wound strings. I only tune them aurally. After roughing in the tuning using this data, I customize the tuning aurally and/or by direct interval meathod.

EBVT III for a Steinway

The following pitches are read on the 6th partial:

A0: -8.0
A#0: -2.0
B0: -4.0
C1: -3.0
C#1: -6.5
D1: -7.0
D#1: -4.0
E1: -4.0
F1: -2.0
F#1: -5.0
G1: -2.0
G#1: -4.0
A1: -5.0
A#1: -1.0
B1: -2.5

C2: 0.0
C#2: -1.0
D2: -1.0
D#2: 0.0
E2: -2.5
F2: 1.0
F#2: 0.0
G2: 1.0
G#2: 0.0
A2: 0.0
A#2: 2.0
B2: 0.0

The Following pitches are read on the 4th partial:

C3: 2.0
C#3: -1.0
D3: 0.0
D#3: -0.5
E3: -2.0
F3: 1.0
F#3: -2.0
G3: 3.0
G#3: 0.0
A3: 0.0
A#3: 2.0
B3: 1.5

The following pitches are read on the second partial:

C4: 2.0
C#4: 0.0
D4: 0.5
D#4: 0.0
E4: -2.0
F4: 1.0
F#4: -1.0
G4: 4.0
G#4: 2.0
A4: 1.5
A#4: 3.0
B4: 2.5

The following pitches are read on the first partial:

C5: 3.0
C#5: 1.0
D5: 2.5
D#5: 2.0
E5: 1.0
F5: 2.0
F#5: 1.0
G5: 6.0
G#5: 4.0
A5: 3.0
A#5: 4.0
B5: 4.0

C6: 6.0
C#6: 4.5
D6: 8.0
D#6: 6.5
E6: 6.0
F6: 8.5
F#6: 8.0
G6: 12.0
G#6: 11.5
A6: 13.0
A#6: 14.0
B6: 14.0

C7: 19.0
C#7: 18.0
D7: 22.0
D#7: 22.0
E7: 21.5
F7: 25.0
F#7: 26.0
G7: 34.5
G#7: 34.0
A7: 35.0
A#7: 36.0
B7: 38.0

C8: 40.0

It would be interesting to know how closely this data matches with a Verituner generated program for any Steinway. You will notice that all of my figures are either whole of half cents. If I start with A3 on 0.0 (as I always do), I can get every subsequent pitch to be either a whole of half cent. My F3 is invariably a 1.0, no matter which piano it is. The F3-A3 M3 is supposed to beat a 6 beats per second and F3 at +1.0 cents against A3 at 0.0 seems to do that every time. F4 at the same +1.0 creates a perfect F3-F4 4:2 octave every time.

When I tune C4 pure to F3, the result is almost always 2.0. When I tune E4 to -2.0, it is always just right for the EBVT III but -2.5 is right for the original EBVT. F#3 at -2.0 is almost always right for the EBVT III but -2.5 or -3.0 is right for the original EBVT. So, you see, that the M&H RBB in the temperament octave is nearly identical to the Steinway, even though each is already known to have a radically different scale and far different amount of inharmonicity:

F3: 1.0
F#3: -2.5
G3: 2.5
G#3: 2.0
A3: 0.0
A#3: 3.0
B3: 0.0
C4: 2.0
C#4: -2.0
D4: 2.0
D#4: 1.0
E4: -2.0
F4: 1.0

Remember that there is a partial selection shift from 4th partial in octave 3 to 2nd partial in octave 4. But you can easily see how all of these figures very closely straddle theoretical ET as they are all read in octave 5. The harmony is affected as intended by plus/minus deviations from theoretical ET but the basic pitch of each note is either exactly on or a very small increment from theoretical ET. That is intended and is by design. I can easily understand why Kamin seemed to like the Bass in the EBVT III postings because of how very closely each pitch came to theoretical ET, particularly in octave 2.

As I move upward from the F3-F4 octave, I expect to raise each value by 0.5 or 1.0 or maybe not at all to improve the way a 5th sounds. By the time I reach F5, I go entirely by what is called, Direct Interval. Some technicians apparently have not understood that concept. If I have my ETD set on F5 for example, reading on the first partial, if I play F3 as I have tuned it, I can find an exact reading that will make F5 be in tune with F3 as a perfect double octave. Just play F3 and stop the pattern and you would have that (regardless of temperament). But what I like to do at this point is to make an equal compromise between the double octave and the octave and 5th. So, if I stop the pattern as I pay F3 (as it is reading one F5), then I play A#3, I would expect to see the pattern roll sharp. I then find the point where the pattern rolls equally sharp for F3 and flat for A#3. I always try to find a whole or half cent value for that. If the amount seems to fall within that range, I go for the sharp side. (I would go for the flat side in the Bass). Micromanaging less than one half cent outside the temperament octave is of no benefit. If the temperament octave itself is arranged on whole or half cents, it makes all determinations much easier.

So, the data you see for either the Steinway or the Mason & Hamlin RBB in the outer octaves has been determined by the actual inharmonicity that the piano has. Double octaves compared to octave and 5ths from F5 to E6 and triple octaves compared to double octaves and 5ths from F6 to C8. The numerical data is what the piano itself produced. The same is true for the Bass. Yes, anyone could produce different data with a different temperament and a different idea about how to stretch the octaves and any such idea could be deemed to be valid. I am only revealing how I did it.

Anyone is welcome to come up with what they think is a better idea. Post your own ideas and their results if you care or dare to do so. I am content with my own ideas at least for the present but I have never stopped refining them. I know what works for me and my clients. Bernhard Stopper and Alfredo Capruso know what works for them. They have clearly defined what they do and everything they do is valid as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for posting that, Bill. I never got any direct data from GP...

I'll be able to take a look at the numbers this week and get back to you - I've got a couple of Ds in my Verituner to compare - the 1912 one at the college is probably the closer match. It should be fun!

(I may just take you up on the visit down this way.... thanks for the offer!)

Ron Koval
chicagoland

Patrick, you're welcome!

Here are a few more recordings made after my 4th tuning of the EBVT III figures Bill gave me.

Again, please forgive my out of tune unisons as the recordings progress from Clair de Lune, which was the 1st after I tuned, to the last one, Warsaw Concerto. I just wanted to sit back and enjoy, rather than jumping up after each recording to clean up those unisons.

I did a little experiment with mics as well. I had not used my older Rode NT5's before with the EBVT....the first several recordings here, I used them. With headphones, you can hear the difference, albeit slight. From what I have read in home-recording forums, the cardioid is preferred for acoustic recordings, but it's not written in stone. I liked both mics...your thoughts? On a few of the recordings, I was monitoring the levels and did not quite turn them down quick enough, so some clipping is there.

I am yet again in awe of Bill's work as I listen to these. As I become better and better at rendering this EBVT III to my piano, I am sure stability will improve, as well as the overall tuning. At this point, my treble is still not stable.

The Ralston pieces are a little schmaltzy, but the Warsaw Concerto is impressive, even with the shmaltz. Pezzone wrote his own material I believe...the Kosovo piece written reflecting that conflict. This music shows that EBVT III sounds good in any type/style. Enjoy!


1. "Clair de Lune" played on the LX by Bob Ralston in EBVT III
http://www.box.net/shared/cuhnetcuox (Rode NT5 Cardiod mics)

2. "Longings" played on the LX by Brian Pezzone in EBVT III http://www.box.net/shared/g94vct2d6t (Rode NT5)

3. "Dara Dream" played on the LX by Brian Pezzone in EBVT III
http://www.box.net/shared/yulethcomi (Rode NT5)

4. "Kosovo Home" played on the LX by Brian Pezzone in EBVT III
http://www.box.net/shared/61ezxkf2j1 (Avenson ST0-2 Omni mics)

5. "Oh Danny Boy" played on the LX by Brian Pezzone in EBVT III
http://www.box.net/shared/5a9z5qbsfy (Rode NT5)

6. "Warsaw Concerto" played on the LX by Bob Ralston in EBVT III
http://www.box.net/shared/0977f2fapr (Avenson STO-2 Omni mics)


Here is a folder with all the above music:

Bill Bremmer's EBVT III-4th Tuning: http://www.box.net/shared/ouii7b91bn

**One thing I have noticed, for some reason, when I use the box.net player online, the sound is a bit distorted, as opposed to downloading the mp3 to my computer, then playing it from there...much better sound, not so strident in the upper harmonics, and a better dynamic range, especially in the bass area.**


It's been a great experience to meet Bill, have him tune my piano, and then enjoy the beatifull music. Thank you again Bill for your great work! You've opened up yet another door to my music/piano!

I am also glad to have been able to further his work on PianoWorld and share it with everyone here. After all, "music makes the world go 'round" as they say, and thanks to Frank, PianoWorld, and the Internet, we can all share our ideas so much easier.

Thanks Bill, and Patrick, for explaining in terms I understand how to go about this tuning. I glanced the instructions and it seems the simple adjustments I asked for are adequately explained, except that I don't know what a 6:3 octave is, but it does not seem that the understanding of it is crucial since it is at the beginning of the sequence, or is it? I'm guessing it's just a pretty normal octave.

I can't wait to try this, maybe even tomorrow.

Thanks, Bill for all your explanations.

Hi Jake,

I will try and answer your questions about www.zenph.com

As I understand it, Zenph takes the sound (information) from the original recordings, and converts it into a high-resolution file that is able to be played back on the SE system that Wayne Stahnke originally developed back in the 80's for Bosendorfer. There is an updated and improved SE system now, made by a gentlemen in England, using Mr. Stahnke's original designs, which is what Zenph is using for their recordings. They also released some of their work for the LX, the Gould Goldberg Variations and the Art Tatum music.

Their high-def midi file does not change the pitch...it only 'plays' the exact notes on the piano..so whatever tuning/pitch that piano has, that's what you hear. You never hear anything digital. So my piano in EBVT III or ET, is playing in the same key it was recorded in originally, but that's it. I am hearing 100% playback of the original recording, timing, tempo, pedaling, and expression....an amazing feat!

Zenph cannot record a tuning, nor can my LX system, which is based on the SE system, it's only for playback of notes.

Hope that explains a bit about the Zenph software.

I don't like the NT5's on the early recordings--they seem to compress both the amplitude and the freq range. Don't know if it's because of the mics or the board, or the mic position, but on these specific recordings using NT5's, there's a nice, warm saturation in the mids, but no range. Too much of a focus on the mids for me.

Jake, all my earlier recordings for the last few years, have been with the Zoom H4 and it's built-in preamp. I think that may be the reason for the compressed sound you are hearing. The Korg is in a different league, as well as it's built-in preamps. DSD or Direct Stream Digital 1-bit, 5.6 MHz recording was something only very high-end recording studios and the Hollywood soundstage/orchestras etc could afford. It's 2 times better than SACD. The price has come down considerably since then.

To colleagues only.

Last night (in Italy) Bill wrote a useful post:

..."You will notice that all of my figures are either whole of half cents. If I start with A3 on 0.0 (as I always do), I can get every subsequent pitch to be either a whole of half cent. My F3 is invariably a 1.0, no matter which piano it is. The F3-A3 M3 is supposed to beat a 6 beats per second and F3 at +1.0 cents against A3 at 0.0 seems to do that every time. F4 at the same +1.0 creates a perfect F3-F4 4:2 octave every time."...

So, no iH problems. 

..."When I tune C4 pure to F3, the result is almost always 2.0. When I tune E4 to -2.0, it is always just right for the EBVT III but -2.5 is right for the original EBVT. F#3 at -2.0 is almost always right for the EBVT III but -2.5 or -3.0 is right for the original EBVT. So, you see, that the M&H RBB in the temperament octave is nearly identical to the Steinway, even though each is already known to have a radically different scale and far different amount of inharmonicity:"...

One more clue about iH.

..."Remember that there is a partial selection shift from 4th partial in octave 3 to 2nd partial in octave 4. But you can easily see how all of these figures very closely straddle theoretical ET as they are all read in octave 5. The harmony is affected as intended by plus/minus deviations from theoretical ET but the basic pitch of each note is either exactly on or a very small increment from theoretical ET."...

I think Bill may be right.

..."I can easily understand why Kamin seemed to like the Bass in the EBVT III postings because of how very closely each pitch came to theoretical ET, particularly in octave 2."...

This may be correct, Kamin may say.

..."As I move upward from the F3-F4 octave, I expect to raise each value by 0.5 or 1.0 or maybe not at all to improve the way a 5th sounds. By the time I reach F5, I go entirely by what is called, Direct Interval. Some technicians apparently have not understood that concept. If I have my ETD set on F5 for example, reading on the first partial, if I play F3 as I have tuned it, I can find an exact reading that will make F5 be in tune with F3 as a perfect double octave. Just play F3 and stop the pattern and you would have that (regardless of temperament). But what I like to do at this point is to make an equal compromise between the double octave and the octave and 5th."...

Isn't this beats symmetries?

..."Micromanaging less than one half cent outside the temperament octave is of no benefit."...

This is where our approaches may depart: I'd tend to micromanaging any audible intervals progression, what no ETD can do.

..."If the temperament octave itself is arranged on whole or half cents, it makes all determinations much easier."...

Bill says "easier" and it is an interesting and relevant "key".

..."So, the data you see for either the Steinway or the Mason & Hamlin RBB in the outer octaves has been determined by the actual inharmonicity that the piano has."...

To me, it seems that in Bill's tuning, outer octaves are determined by beats simmetries, am I wrong?

..."Double octaves compared to octave and 5ths from F5 to E6"...

I do not konw, was I wrong?

..."and triple octaves compared to double octaves and 5ths from F6 to C8."

Yes, it is better to refer to octaves close to your temperament register (when you distinguish it), this can round things better.

All together, (O) Bill could put an end to his crusade against ET, by recognizing that EBVT tuning (by design) sounds like a fair, comfortable and good enough version of actual octaves stretching and beats simmetries, in the way modern ET theories can describe. Then, the many aleatory comments about colours and emotions could be avoided.

Say you tune a good modern ET today, wouldn't you find a fairly good "non equal" the day after? Doesn't the piano itself "micromanage" what you have tuned, so putting "colours" on top of your tunings? Will Bill have listened to the M&H RBB the next day?

Bill says that what I'm doing is valid. This is also what I think about Bill's tunings, but my point is looking at pianos issues clearly for what they are, along with our deepest insights joined together.

Have a nice sunday, regards, a.c.

iH is providing much of the problems when you want to follow the 4:5 ratio rule all along the keyboard. (he 4beats to 5beats relation between M3ds) that is when the beats are created by partials that are located high in the spectra.

Unfortunately, as those RBI are very audible we have to manage them

Then you often finally have the choice to have the M3 progressive and the 5Ths less of the 5ths nice and the 3M with some variation in progression.

What I hear when listening to EBVT is a mild temperament in the medium range, that keep is shape but way less in the 5 th and 2nd octave, and is way more even in the high treble and low bass.

A consecutive 17 th , and 12 th scale would show it.
I wonder if a more strict respect of the temperament would not provide more the wanted effect.

In the basses indeed many intervals are re conciliated, but still I hear some tonalities more large (C, and others small, as F#) than others (as this is the intention I suppose this is normal).

In any case what I recognize in terms of global resonance (raised harmony) can be at last partly given to the reaction given between the 4th, the 12th the double and the sixth as to my ears it tend to "lock" at a resonant spot at each time)

That beat synchronism can be heard in that tuning test on a vertical : http://www.box.net/shared/ptfcnaommd

There is some space within that good spot despite the precision it can offer.

Talking about the partial selectioned and used by the tuning softwares or goodies most of them compute you a justness based on the smoothing of the 3d (12 th) the second (octave) or the 4ths (double octave) partial, trying to derive a fundamental frequencies by Ih computation, there is much space for mistakes, even if they can help, they tend to change the way you are listening, and then you'll have a neat 12th progression then something that is derived from that progression. I believe the cause of the lack of musicality in those tunings is due to that, no precise intention, just guesses.


Indeed in the hand of a good tuner they will eventually help him, eventually show him the piano drift during tuning, (and provide a good justness model if they can take in account more than one partial at the same time) but I would consider all those EDT as being less precise than what our ears can do ; not a question of 10ths of cts or ear discrimination, but beat count.

They can be used in direct tuning, eventually, but still they dont listen as goos as you !

I, for one wish to hear that Schubert 4th impromptu,whenever possible.

Here is a nice "clair de Lune" "clinically cold, but recorded in March I guess" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2XzoA94Zws