Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum Possible EBVT III implementation on TuneLab

I tried my new numbers on another piano. I didn't make a recording, but here are my findings:

I didn't find any problems with C3 or B2 in particular, but did at D3, which was the first wound string. I think that one or two notes will always need some aural tweaking, just like when tuning ET with an ETD.

I matched to sound of Patrick's tuning by copying his custom offset of D5. The fifth is much calmer, with a fairly rapid beating at the fourth, and about 1 BPS at the octave. Here is the latest .tun file:

EBVT2.0

The rest of the piano was very, very nice. I couldn't find a note (other than D3) where I didn't agree with the numbers the ETD generated. A few notes needed a little aural verification, but more due to an inconsistent pitch being produced by the strings, than an error by the machine.

The piano this time was another Nordiska grand, a model G, 5'5" Chinese piano. I used Tune-lab automatic settings, with 8:2/3:1 as the settings. I think these settings will work well with most pianos. On a philosophical level, they are pleasing, as the overall stretch is determined in this tuning by comparing the double octave and twelfth, so it makes sense to use a double octave setting and twelfth setting, to me. In practical terms, it seems that 6:3/4:1 settings don't yield mindless octaves when using my numbers, one of their limitations. More stretch is needed to make them work.

Regards,

Patrick,

The second audio (no video but a blank screen) sounded perfect!. Th D5 problem here had been solved to perfection. This is exactly how I would intend for the piano to sound,

Bill: I wish you a speedy recovery.

Pat: This may be moot as Thomas's method seems to work so well. An option would be to just record a master EBVT tuning, then I can make a best fit through it with a tunelab style stretch curve, compute the offsets from that and they should work for any piano.

I actually have Bill's Steinway D numbers as offsets from a flat ET. As-is they will work only on that instrument but if I extract the offsets they should be pretty much universal. I have IH data of several Steinway D's I can use.

The power supply of my computer died so I won't be able to get the promised data to you till it's fixed. I think it's more important to check if a straight tunelab tuning with the EBVT WT offsets is noticeably worse than Thomas' method.

Kees

Bill: Great, I felt the same way and your confirmation of it is very welcomed!

Kees: I don't consider it moot at all. I think we'd be wise to keep approaching this from slightly different angles, check pianos of different sizes, and continue to extract the data and transform it into new knowledge.

Do you think it would be a good idea to look at my C5 tuning and Bill's master tuning from both the mason & hamlin and the steinway D? I asked GPM to record the iH constants for us. With all this information you should be good to go, don't you think?

I spent the whole evening/early night by comparing the TL default against Thomas' numbers. Very interesting indeed. To me, it's like night and day, because the small changes that might be still be desired in Thomas' numbers just outside the temperament are consistent, whereas the changes needed in the tunelab default calculation are very random.. I have video clips of this that I will post here ASAP.

@Thomas: I had the same thing today with the last plain wires, only now it was in a different place (due to a shorter instrument). Would there be any idea in pursuing the split-scale mode of tunelab, just to make this work universally, aiming for as little aural tweaking needed as ever possible?

I think your 3:1 idea might be interesting. If I look at the piano I tuned today, a 3:1 setting would have given slightly narrow 12ths up to C7, then pure 12ths from there on. Now, if you switch to manual mode and raise C8 a little bit, it ends up where I'd like it to be, and at the same time the 3:1's become wide in the last octave or so. That would be very in line with the stretch that I (and Bill) use.

Hello Patrick:

To answer your question, I've never personally used split-scale model in Tunelab, simply because my version does not have it. I'm not sure of the success that the split-scale model has had, but the latest version of Tunelab, the Iphone version, does not have any such provision. If I remember correctly, the goal of split scale models was to maintain the purity of the octaves at the expense of other intervals, which my not lend itself to this tuning, but then again, it may work quite well.

Long story short, I don't know, and can't effectively test it myself.

I'll try your approach for manually adjusting the curve the next chance I get. Your goal is to have wide 12ths in the last octave?

I'm going to bed now, and wish everyone working on this a pleasant evening.

Interesting, I didn't know the split scale mode was discontinued.
The idea I thought was to have an IH model that consists of two smooth curves with a jump across the break. I now remember I tried it about a year ago on my piano and was not very happy with the result. Perhaps it is better to tune pretending the break does not exist, i.e. trying to mask it rather than take it into account?

I would be delighted if Robert Scott would feel inclined to comment on this.

Kees

It is not exactly discontinued. It just hasn't been implemented yet on the iPhone. Just as we did with pitch-raise mode, we are working toward a better implementation than we had before. The old implementation was a little awkward and maybe confusing. In the IPhone world people expect more simplicity of operation, and that is what we would like to do with split-scale mode.

Here are the videos from yesterday night's session on a Yamaha C2.

First, using TuneLab's EBVT III default:
2011-04-14 Tunelab EBVT III default

Then, TuneLab with Thomas' (Tdowel's) EBVT III numbers applied:
2011-04-14 Tunelab EBVT III, Tdowels numbers

Then music played with all strings open:
2011-04-14 All strings open

... and finally another clip with all strings open, this time including comparison of D3-D4-G4-A4-D5 (which I forgot in the previous file):
2011-04-14 All strings open 2

Here are the TuneLab defaults, using EBVT III offsets:

Template 1.0606087 12.8285 0.6976562 10.2217
TempName Bremmer EBVT-III
Offset A 0.00
Offset A# 2.39
Offset B -0.16
Offset C 3.31
Offset C# -1.08
Offset D 0.62
Offset D# 1.38
Offset E -0.48
Offset F 1.49
Offset F# -0.17
Offset G 2.73
Offset G# 0.93
IntervalSel 2 4
IHCon C1 0.474
IHCon C2 0.113
IHCon C3 0.086
IHCon C4 0.446
IHCon C5 0.844
A0 6 -21.0 0.00
A#0 6 -16.7 0.00
B0 6 -17.6 0.00
C1 6 -12.6 0.00
C#1 6 -15.5 0.00
D1 6 -12.6 0.00
D#1 6 -10.6 0.00
E1 6 -11.4 0.00
F1 6 -8.4 0.00
F#1 6 -9.2 0.00
G1 6 -5.4 0.00
G#1 6 -6.5 0.00
A1 6 -6.7 0.00
A#1 6 -3.6 0.00
B1 6 -5.5 0.00
C2 6 -1.5 0.00
C#2 6 -5.3 0.00
D2 6 -3.1 0.00
D#2 6 -1.8 0.00
E2 6 -3.2 0.00
F2 4 -3.0 0.00
F#2 4 -4.2 0.00
G2 4 -0.8 0.00
G#2 4 -2.2 0.00
A2 4 -2.8 0.00
A#2 4 0.0 0.00
B2 4 -2.2 0.00
C3 4 1.7 0.00
C#3 4 -2.4 0.00
D3 4 -0.3 0.00
D#3 4 0.8 0.00
E3 4 -0.8 0.00
F3 2 -0.5 0.00
F#3 2 -1.9 0.00
G3 2 1.2 0.00
G#3 2 -0.3 0.00
A3 2 -1.1 0.00
A#3 2 1.6 0.00
B3 2 -0.8 0.00
C4 2 2.9 0.00
C#4 2 -1.2 0.00
D4 2 0.7 0.00
D#4 2 1.7 0.00
E4 2 0.1 0.00
F4 2 2.3 0.00
F#4 2 1.0 0.00
G4 2 4.1 0.00
G#4 2 2.7 0.00
A4 1 0.0 0.00
A#4 1 2.6 0.00
B4 1 0.2 0.00
C5 1 3.9 0.00
C#5 1 -0.3 0.00
D5 1 1.7 0.00
D#5 1 2.7 0.00
E5 1 1.1 0.00
F5 1 3.4 0.00
F#5 1 2.0 0.00
G5 1 5.3 0.00
G#5 1 3.8 0.00
A5 1 3.3 0.00
A#5 1 6.1 0.00
B5 1 4.0 0.00
C6 1 7.9 0.00
C#6 1 4.1 0.00
D6 1 6.3 0.00
D#6 1 7.7 0.00
E6 1 6.5 0.00
F6 1 9.2 0.00
F#6 1 8.3 0.00
G6 1 12.0 0.00
G#6 1 11.1 0.00
A6 1 11.2 0.00
A#6 1 14.6 0.00
B6 1 13.2 0.00
C7 1 17.9 0.00
C#7 1 14.8 0.00
D7 1 17.9 0.00
D#7 1 20.2 0.00
E7 1 20.0 0.00
F7 1 23.8 0.00
F#7 1 24.1 0.00
G7 1 29.1 0.00
G#7 1 29.5 0.00
A7 1 31.1 0.00
A#7 1 36.1 0.00
B7 1 36.4 0.00
C8 1 43.0 0.00

........................

Here are Thomas' (Tdowel's) numbers:

Template 1.0606098 12.8285 0.6976558 10.2217
IntervalSel 2 4
IHCon C1 0.474
IHCon C2 0.113
IHCon C3 0.086
IHCon C4 0.446
IHCon C5 0.844
A0 6 -20.9 0.08
A#0 6 -18.5 0.61
B0 6 -18.5 -1.12
C1 6 -14.5 1.38
C#1 6 -15.6 -1.11
D1 6 -12.2 0.95
D#1 6 -12.2 -0.19
E1 6 -11.8 -0.88
F1 6 -9.1 0.78
F#1 6 -10.1 -1.09
G1 6 -6.4 1.77
G#1 6 -8.0 -0.56
A1 6 -7.2 -0.51
A#1 6 -4.9 1.13
B1 6 -6.5 -1.12
C2 6 -3.4 1.39
C#2 6 -6.0 -1.72
D2 6 -2.9 0.77
D#2 6 -3.0 0.25
E2 6 -3.9 -1.15
F2 4 -3.4 1.03
F#2 4 -5.1 -1.08
G2 4 -1.6 2.01
G#2 4 -4.3 -1.17
A2 4 -3.4 -0.60
A#2 4 -1.4 0.98
B2 4 -3.1 -1.09
C3 4 0.1 1.72
C#3 4 -2.5 -1.15
D3 4 -1.1 -0.12
D#3 4 0.2 0.78
E3 4 -1.4 -1.17
F3 2 -1.4 0.58
F#3 2 -2.8 -1.08
G3 2 0.3 1.82
G#3 2 -1.3 0.02
A3 2 -2.0 -0.91
A#3 2 0.6 1.48
B3 2 -1.7 -1.07
C4 2 1.8 2.20
C#4 2 -2.5 -2.35
D4 2 -0.2 -0.29
D#4 2 0.8 0.47
E4 2 -0.8 -1.39
F4 2 1.4 0.58
F#4 2 0.0 -1.08
G4 2 3.2 1.82
G#4 2 1.7 0.02
A4 1 -0.9 -0.91
A#4 1 1.1 0.90
B4 1 -0.8 -1.20
C5 1 2.1 1.48
C#5 1 -0.5 -1.37
D5 1 1.5 0.43
D#5 1 1.7 0.38
E5 1 0.4 -1.16
F5 1 2.8 0.89
F#5 1 1.1 -1.08
G5 1 4.5 2.01
G#5 1 1.7 -1.17
A5 1 2.7 -0.60
A#5 1 4.7 0.98
B5 1 2.9 -1.23
C6 1 6.0 1.39
C#6 1 3.4 -1.72
D6 1 6.5 0.77
D#6 1 6.6 0.25
E6 1 5.8 -1.15
F6 1 8.0 0.29
F#6 1 7.9 -0.54
G6 1 10.2 0.91
G#6 1 10.2 0.01
A6 1 10.7 -0.46
A#6 1 12.8 0.64
B6 1 12.2 -1.18
C7 1 15.4 0.86
C#7 1 14.7 -1.22
D7 1 18.5 1.22
D#7 1 18.4 -0.39
E7 1 19.6 -0.88
F7 1 23.2 0.93
F#7 1 23.1 -1.15
G7 1 28.0 1.70
G#7 1 27.2 -1.44
A7 1 31.2 0.08
A#7 1 34.3 0.61
B7 1 35.4 -1.19
C8 1 40.5 0.84

.........................

And here's my numbers, the notes I moved are in bold:

Template 1.0606098 12.8285 0.6976558 10.2217
IntervalSel 2 4
IHCon C1 0.474
IHCon C2 0.113
IHCon C3 0.086
IHCon C4 0.446
IHCon C5 0.844
A0 6 -20.9 0.08
A#0 6 -18.5 0.61
B0 6 -18.5 -1.12
C1 6 -14.5 1.38
C#1 6 -15.6 -1.11
D1 6 -12.2 0.95
D#1 6 -12.2 -0.19
E1 6 -11.8 -0.88
F1 6 -9.1 0.78
F#1 6 -10.1 -1.09
G1 6 -6.4 1.77
G#1 6 -8.0 -0.56
A1 6 -7.2 -0.51
A#1 6 -4.9 1.13
B1 6 -6.5 -1.12
C2 6 -3.4 1.39
C#2 6 -6.0 -1.72
D2 6 -2.9 0.77
D#2 6 -3.0 0.25
E2 6 -3.9 -1.15
F2 4 -3.4 1.03
F#2 4 -5.1 -1.08
G2 4 -1.6 2.01
G#2 4 -4.3 -1.17
A2 4 -3.4 -0.60
A#2 4 -1.4 0.98
B2 4 -3.1 -1.09
C3 4 0.1 1.72
C#3 4 -3.3 -2.01
D3 4 -0.8 0.11
D#3 4 0.2 0.78
E3 4 -1.4 -1.17
F3 2 -1.4 0.58
F#3 2 -2.8 -1.08
G3 2 0.3 1.82
G#3 2 -1.3 0.02
A3 2 -2.0 -0.91
A#3 2 0.6 1.48
B3 2 -1.7 -1.07
C4 2 1.8 2.20
C#4 2 -2.5 -2.35
D4 2 -0.2 -0.29
D#4 2 0.8 0.47
E4 2 -0.8 -1.39
F4 2 1.4 0.58
F#4 2 0.0 -1.08
G4 2 3.2 1.82
G#4 2 1.7 0.02
A4 1 0.3 0.32
A#4 1 1.1 0.90
B4 1 -0.8 -1.20
C5 1 2.1 1.48
C#5 1 0.9 0.11
D5 1 3.0 1.91
D#5 1 1.7 0.38
E5 1 1.2 -0.40
F5 1 2.8 0.89
F#5 1 1.1 -1.08
G5 1 4.5 2.01
G#5 1 1.7 -1.17
A5 1 2.7 -0.60
A#5 1 4.7 0.98
B5 1 2.9 -1.23
C6 1 6.0 1.39
C#6 1 3.4 -1.72
D6 1 6.5 0.77
D#6 1 6.6 0.25
E6 1 5.8 -1.15
F6 1 8.0 0.29
F#6 1 7.9 -0.54
G6 1 10.2 0.91
G#6 1 10.2 0.01
A6 1 10.7 -0.46
A#6 1 12.8 0.64
B6 1 12.2 -1.18
C7 1 15.4 0.86
C#7 1 14.7 -1.22
D7 1 18.5 1.22
D#7 1 18.4 -0.39
E7 1 19.6 -0.88
F7 1 23.2 0.93
F#7 1 23.1 -1.15
G7 1 28.0 1.70
G#7 1 27.2 -1.44
A7 1 31.2 0.08
A#7 1 34.3 0.61
B7 1 35.4 -1.19
C8 1 40.5 0.84

Well, in the video I spoke about moving D3 down. In my numbers, it's sharper than in Thomas' calculation. Either it drifted before I recorded it, or then I misjudged it because I was tired. Or possibly a combination of both...

Yes, exactly. I think I can speak for both Bill and myself regarding this - we go for a balance between 4:1 and 3:1 up from F5, then stretch the tuning in the high treble.

I used TuneLab's nice feature of displaying an additional interval beneath the tuning curve. Here, 3:1's are drawn in blue. This is the graph for your numbers for the Y C2, applied to a TL curve with 8:4 bass / 3:1 treble:



... and here is what I ended up using in that session (8:4 bass / 8:1 treble):



When I checked the tuning the day before, where i used 8:4 bass and 8:2 treble, and of which Bill highly approved, you can see the same thing happening at about C7:

Well, I didn't get to see all of your video, because for some reason my computer wouldn't download past you checking the double octaves around F5. Here are my thoughts from listening to your video:
I felt that notes A4 to D5, all were slightly flat of where I would think they would go, I agreed that D#5 was fine, and that E5 had to go up. The temperament sounded fine, and I agreed with your aural adjustments of the area below the temperament.

Here are my newest creations, first EBVTIII2.0(which I just realized did not upload correctly in a previous post), which corrects D5 to 2.1 cents above the curve, and the adjustments that caused in the rest of the tuning in the treble.

Then, what I call EBVTIII2,1, which tries a different formula for the area directly above the temperament, ignoring the fourth, and focusing only on the octave and fifth. I also realized that I had erroneously used a formula in the bass that tried to used mindless octaves with the 15th and 11th, not the 15th and 12th. This makes some subtle, but no doubt noticeable changes to the bass tuning below A2. I'll be able to try both of these .tun files on Monday, and will try to record the results.

Here they are:
EBVTIII2.0---> http://www.box.net/shared/4rvcyudz8k
EBVTIII2,1---> http://www.box.net/shared/r42pfseqaf

Try them if you want to, but beware they have no field testing to back them up yet.

Have fun!

Regards,

I just saw your latest post Patrick, Thank you for that information! I'll try that the next time I tune with these numbers.

Regards,

Cool, that might be the solution to get overall numbers that work in that area! As of now, it feels like the large stretch (8:4/8:2) took well care of it, but that less stretch introduced a bit of twangy fifths again.

What ever happened in the lucky combination of your numbers, the Yamaha C3's inharmonicity and the use of 8:4/8:2's is what we have to try to get happening consistently. Bill stating that it is just the way he intend the piano to sound is our guiding star here. I think this new approach of yours will be interesting to try out i that respect, as I have a feeling it will take care of the area just above the temperament rather nicely on smaller pianos too.

Pat:

How come the bad octave D4D5 and/or 4th A4D4 will be fixed once the unisons come in, but a bad 5th G4D5 is not?

Second, at the break (say at C#3/D3) the IH jumps up from
0.24 (C#3) to 0.46 (D3) on my piano. An ih model curve that ignores this break will therefore underestimate the IH for the notes just above the break and hence placed them higher than they should (as it thinks the partials are lower than they are). So I think a split-scale model would fix that.

Can you try it with a split scale model on your next experiment? BTW I reverted back to a 4th/5th tuning for C3-E3, aiming for a 2:1 beat ratio instead of a 4:3. From B2 down to F2 I gradually fade out the contribution of the 4th.

Cheers,
Kees

I must say I have some reservations about adjusting the parameters in a theoretically unmotivated way just to fit the aural tuning. We might as well just measure the offsets from an aural tuning and be done with.

I'm convinced that this approach (adjusting the parameters in a theoretically unmotivated way) will produce a superb EBVT tuning, but once we got it nailed down we won't know why it works, and it will probably work only for EBVT3. And I'm not convinced Bill will not come up with EBVT4 at some point, not to mention Neidhardt and Sorge.

My interest in this thread is more to see if complex aural tuning criteria can be simulated and translated into an ETD implementation.

Just my position on this,keeping an open mind as always

Kees

Well, I wouldn't say my formula's are "theoretically unmotivated" . My latest custom offsets are based solidly on how I personally tune aurally, and my understanding of tuning math.

I've had more time to think about what is right and what is wrong with my approach. For example, I thought that I could simply use the UT offsets like I could actual frequencies, but am starting to understand that limitation.

For example, if note C4 is offset 3 cents flat, F4 is two cents sharp, and G4 has no offset, consider the possibilities of C5 (I just picked these numbers out of the air):

If C5 is tuned at -3 from the curve, this will result in an ET octave (slightly stretched).

If C5 is tune +2 cents, it will result in an ET fifth, about 2 cents narrow.

If C5 is tuned at 0 cents, it will result in an ET fourth, about 2 cents wide.

By averaging these numbers, I came to the compromise where everything is trying to equalize based on ET, not on pure intervals. This might explain why such a great amount of stretch is needed to make the intervals work well on actual pianos.

So, I needed to compromise based on pure intervals. Since
(C4*.333+(F4+2)*.333+(G4-2)*.333)is the same as (C4*.33+F4*.333+G4*.333), I realized that the fourth and the fifth cancel out each other. So, since the 5th is the most important interval, I used the formula, (for example, on C5) of (C4*.45+(F4+2)*.55). I used the 45%/55% numbers because they effectively raised the the notes from A4 to E5, to where I would expect them aurally on the pianos I've tuned, and based on listening to Patrick's tunings as well. They give nearly identical treatment to the ET octave, and pure 5th, but little more to the pure fifth. I am learning a great deal about how EBVT III should be tuned from this, as well as the how much beating can be tolerated in the 4ths and octaves. I am basing these numbers on

All of this does bring light and insight toward your approach, which produces similar results as mine. Our approaches yielded such similar results, that errors seen in my approach my point to ways to improve your formula's. For example, since my approach with a 6:3/4:1 tuning was nearly identical to yours, the fact that this tuning tended to leave notes a little flat, may point to an area to improve your formulas (or is that formualae? ) I see your approach as the pinnacle, one that could be fully achieved by a product like Verituner, which samples enough information, that your formula's would create a very, very well tuned piano. Keep up the good work.

For now, I only have experience in Tunelab, and little bit with the SAT III. I wouldn't worry too much about errors around the break, as this is simply a weak spot with Tunelab, and probably any other ETD. They will all need some aural tweaking in that area. I always aurally check those octaves across the break when doing actual tuning, unless I'm in a big rush (tuning several practice room pianos in a short time...)

So, there's my "theoretical motivation" if you will.

Regards, as always with the deepest respect,

Kees,

From the very beginning of ETD development, people have been trying to replicate what aural tuners actually do and have had difficulty making sense of it. So, that would be nothing new. My tuning of the high treble and low bass of any piano is based upon the actual inharmonicity that a piano actually has. It is never pulled out of thin air.

If I want a rather conservative amount of stretch in the high treble (which is not often), I can simply compare double octaves and octave-fifths all the way to the top. If I want more stretch, I can use 6:1 octaves beginning on or about F6, 8:1 octaves beginning on or about C7 and pure triple octave-fifths (whatever ratio that is) from F7 to C8.

Whichever choice is made, there is a rational and justification for it, not just an arbitrary placement of those highest pitches. I use my ETD in the Direct Interval mode to find those values, so blame the piano's inharmonicity, not any sense of melodic value or anything else that could be considered illogical and without foundation.

I've said this before: There will be no EBVT IV! If I want a milder temperament, I can use the Ultra Mild Well Temperament which I designed about a year ago. I can also use the 1/9 Comma Meantone.

If I want an 18th Century style WT, I can use the same sequence that I use for the EBVT but begin with four equally beating intervals at 4 beats per second. It could be called the "EBWT-18", that is, an Equal Beating 18th Century [style] Well Temperament.

The same idea may be possible with four equally beating intervals at 5 beats per second but I have never tried that or pursued it. It might create an early 19th Century style WT but even if it did, it would not constitute another modification of the original EBVT. There is just something about 5 beats per second that I don't think would be very appealing.

Any further adjustments to the EBVT-III would only upset the harmonic balance, so it is literally not possible to create yet another version of it.

And I have to be diplomatic, slightly lame but truthful and declare that I agree with all of you

Like I wrote earlier, I thing both paths are needed.

I tuned a Yamaha G2 today. I tried your 2.1, Thomas, but I didn't get decent tuning curves in TuneLab. I checked the start of the extension upwards, but at least with 8:4/3:1's (with a "lifted" high treble like I spoke in favor of yesterday), the 4ths seemed quite twangy early on.

Because I was under a time restraint and had scheduled for a hammer filing after the tuning, I jumped back to your "old" numbers, did aural adjusting, and recorded my changes. I think it would be a good task for me to keep on trying it on different instruments, get back with my findings, and let you guys look for a pattern.

The Yamaha G2 is no easy instrument to tune. It is quite different from a C2, it has more of a U3 feel to it (as in stretch tolerance). On both the U3 and the G2, you'd have to fight to keep a stretch with narrow 12ths (I don't know why, this is just something I notice from my aural tuning measurements).

Anyways, here is the tuning graph for the G2. Black dots are 8:4 bass, 3:1 treble, blues are 3:1 bass, 4:1 treble:




Here are the default TL/Tdowel numbers:

Template 1.4132205 14.1969 0.9341922 10.9095
IntervalSel 2 7
IHCon C1 0.481
IHCon C2 0.117
IHCon C3 0.277
IHCon C4 0.427
IHCon C5 0.984
IHCon C6 2.216
BasicOffset 0.00
A0 6 -22.5 0.08
A#0 6 -20.1 0.61
B0 6 -20.2 -1.12
C1 6 -16.1 1.38
C#1 6 -17.1 -1.11
D1 6 -13.7 0.95
D#1 6 -13.6 -0.19
E1 6 -13.2 -0.88
F1 6 -10.5 0.78
F#1 6 -11.4 -1.09
G1 6 -7.7 1.77
G#1 6 -9.2 -0.56
A1 6 -8.3 -0.51
A#1 6 -6.0 1.13
B1 6 -7.5 -1.12
C2 6 -4.4 1.39
C#2 6 -6.9 -1.72
D2 6 -3.8 0.77
D#2 6 -3.8 0.25
E2 6 -4.7 -1.15
F2 4 -4.4 1.03
F#2 4 -6.0 -1.08
G2 4 -2.4 2.01
G#2 4 -5.1 -1.17
A2 4 -4.1 -0.60
A#2 4 -2.1 0.98
B2 4 -3.7 -1.09
C3 4 -0.5 1.72
C#3 4 -3.0 -1.15
D3 4 -1.6 -0.12
D#3 4 -0.3 0.78
E3 4 -1.8 -1.17
F3 2 -1.9 0.58
F#3 2 -3.3 -1.08
G3 2 -0.1 1.82
G#3 2 -1.6 0.02
A3 2 -2.3 -0.91
A#3 2 0.3 1.48
B3 2 -2.0 -1.07
C4 2 1.6 2.20
C#4 2 -2.7 -2.35
D4 2 -0.4 -0.29
D#4 2 0.7 0.47
E4 2 -0.9 -1.39
F4 2 1.4 0.58
F#4 2 0.0 -1.08
G4 2 3.3 1.82
G#4 2 1.8 0.02
A4 1 -0.9 -0.91
A#4 1 1.1 0.90
B4 1 -0.7 -1.20
C5 1 2.2 1.48
C#5 1 -0.4 -1.37
D5 1 1.6 0.43
D#5 1 1.9 0.38
E5 1 0.6 -1.16
F5 1 3.0 0.89
F#5 1 1.4 -1.08
G5 1 4.8 2.01
G#5 1 2.0 -1.17
A5 1 3.0 -0.60
A#5 1 5.0 0.98
B5 1 3.3 -1.23
C6 1 6.4 1.39
C#6 1 3.8 -1.72
D6 1 6.9 0.77
D#6 1 7.0 0.25
E6 1 6.2 -1.15
F6 1 8.3 0.29
F#6 1 8.3 -0.54
G6 1 10.5 0.91
G#6 1 10.5 0.01
A6 1 10.9 -0.46
A#6 1 13.0 0.64
B6 1 12.2 -1.18
C7 1 15.4 0.86
C#7 1 14.6 -1.22
D7 1 18.3 1.22
D#7 1 18.1 -0.39
E7 1 19.1 -0.88
F7 1 22.5 0.93
F#7 1 22.2 -1.15
G7 1 26.9 1.70
G#7 1 25.7 -1.44
A7 1 29.4 0.08
A#7 1 32.2 0.61
B7 1 32.9 -1.19
C8 1 37.5 0.84

------------------------

... and here are my adjustments (marked in bold):

Template 1.4132205 14.1969 0.9341922 10.9095
IntervalSel 2 7
IHCon C1 0.481
IHCon C2 0.117
IHCon C3 0.277
IHCon C4 0.427
IHCon C5 0.984
IHCon C6 2.216
BasicOffset 8.76
A0 6 -22.5 0.08
A#0 6 -20.1 0.61
B0 6 -20.2 -1.12
C1 6 -16.1 1.38
C#1 6 -17.1 -1.11
D1 6 -13.7 0.95
D#1 6 -13.6 -0.19
E1 6 -13.2 -0.88
F1 6 -10.5 0.78
F#1 6 -11.4 -1.09
G1 6 -7.7 1.77
G#1 6 -9.2 -0.56
A1 6 -8.3 -0.51
A#1 6 -6.0 1.13
B1 6 -7.5 -1.12
C2 6 -4.4 1.39
C#2 6 -6.9 -1.72
D2 6 -3.8 0.77
D#2 6 -3.8 0.25
E2 6 -4.7 -1.15
F2 4 -4.4 1.03
F#2 4 -6.0 -1.08
G2 4 -2.4 2.01
G#2 4 -5.1 -1.17
A2 4 -4.1 -0.60
A#2 4 -2.1 0.98
B2 4 -3.9 -1.27
C3 4 -1.5 0.70
C#3 4 -3.0 -1.15
D3 4 -1.6 -0.12
D#3 4 -0.3 0.78
E3 4 -1.8 -1.17
F3 2 -1.9 0.58
F#3 2 -3.3 -1.08
G3 2 -0.1 1.82
G#3 2 -1.6 0.02
A3 2 -2.3 -0.91
A#3 2 0.3 1.48
B3 2 -2.0 -1.07
C4 2 1.6 2.20
C#4 2 -2.7 -2.35
D4 2 -0.4 -0.29
D#4 2 0.7 0.47
E4 2 -0.9 -1.39
F4 2 1.4 0.58
F#4 2 -0.7 -1.85
G4 2 3.3 1.82
G#4 2 1.8 0.02
A4 1 -0.9 -0.91
A#4 1 1.5 1.32
B4 1 0.6 0.12
C5 1 2.2 1.48
C#5 1 0.4 -0.57
D5 1 1.6 0.43
D#5 1 1.9 0.38
E5 1 2.1 0.35
F5 1 3.0 0.89
F#5 1 1.4 -1.08
G5 1 4.8 2.01
G#5 1 2.0 -1.17
A5 1 3.0 -0.60
A#5 1 5.0 0.98
B5 1 3.3 -1.23
C6 1 6.4 1.39
C#6 1 3.8 -1.72
D6 1 6.9 0.77
D#6 1 7.0 0.25
E6 1 6.2 -1.15
F6 1 8.3 0.29
F#6 1 8.3 -0.54
G6 1 10.5 0.91
G#6 1 10.5 0.01
A6 1 10.9 -0.46
A#6 1 13.0 0.64
B6 1 12.2 -1.18
C7 1 15.4 0.86
C#7 1 14.6 -1.22
D7 1 18.3 1.22
D#7 1 18.1 -0.39
E7 1 19.1 -0.88
F7 1 22.5 0.93
F#7 1 22.2 -1.15
G7 1 26.9 1.70
G#7 1 25.7 -1.44
A7 1 29.4 0.08
A#7 1 32.2 0.61
B7 1 32.9 -1.19
C8 1 37.5 0.84

-----------------------

@Thomas: Is it possible that

1) F#4 might be a bit sharp,
2) C#4 and E4 might be a bit flat?

Of course aural tuning is going to live its own life to some extent, but I'm trying to nail down consistent findings.