source file: mills3.txt Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:22:38 +0100 Subject: Carl's opinion on FPI tuning From: Carl Lumma That's Free Pitched Instruments. And, if you only had to read one thing about my opinion on tuning them, Hstick says it best! >I don't think our fixed pitch instruments are stuck in 12; our >minds are...Hstick Bingo! If we had the conservatories filled with Xenharmonic keyboards and theory classes, then we have ensembles using Xenharmonics in a very effective way (as opposed to doing it by accident, as they do now). >What a manufacturer considers 'correct' may vary very slightly. But in >general, it seems that much effort is put into actually 'centering' the >resultant pitches which arise, by equalling out factors of breath pressure in >tests etc . And the 'model' is certainly 12-ET. I don't know as much about clarinets, but I've played the trumpet for many years. And trumpet players are notorious "equipment freaks", so I am always up on the latest stuff. But when it comes down to it, trumpets are just three natural horns in a small package. Thus, playing the harmonic series is easy as can be -> When you hear an arpegio, you can bet it's Just. I've got two top-of-the-line professional Bb horns, a Bach Stradivarius with 72 bell and a Yamaha ML heavy-wall. And I've played many different configurations of the above. I can personally say, and it is well known, that the intonational characteristics vary widely from horn to horn of the same make and config, let alone different makes and configurations. As far as what intonational 'model' the builders shoot for, they must be torn between good harmonic characteristics and 12equal approximations. The Yamaha tends to pull towards the 12 equal in the high register, but is just plain out of tune in any system in the low range. The Bach tends to be more harmonic throughout, and the tone is plainly warmer to the most novice listener. But either horn will intone however my conservatory-trained friend wants it to, once he's had a few minutes to get to know the pet peeves of it. The bottom line is: I'm all for new instrument design of any kind. But I can only see biasing free pitched instruments to equal temperaments as the exception (say, for keyboard concertos) rather than the rule. And the real bottom line is just what Hstick says. Carl SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu From: "Paul H. Erlich" Subject: RE: Xenharmonic? PostedDate: 20-11-97 22:38:11 SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu $MessageStorage: 0 $UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH RouteTimes: 20-11-97 22:36:48-20-11-97 22:36:49,20-11-97 22:36:55-20-11-97 22:36:56 DeliveredDate: 20-11-97 22:36:56 Categories: $Revisions: Received: from ns.ezh.nl ([137.174.112.59]) by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA SMTP v4.6 (462.2 9-3-1997)) with SMTP id C1256555.0076B5E7; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:36:38 +0100 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA04262; Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:38:11 +0100 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:38:11 +0100 Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA04260 Received: (qmail 19382 invoked from network); 20 Nov 1997 13:38:08 -0800 Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 20 Nov 1997 13:38:08 -0800 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu