Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

New septenarius for a'=440 Hz, was Re: Werckmeister's Septinarius temperament

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Sparschuh
    ... W s modified stringlengths can be interpreted as absolute frequencies of an 5ths circle: a 440Hz a220 A110 e 330 e165 b 495 1485/1484 f# 742 f# 371
    Message 1 of 26 , Apr 12 11:59 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
      wrote/discussed in:
      >
      >http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~tdent/septenarius.html

      W's modified stringlengths can be interpreted as absolute frequencies
      of an 5ths circle:

      a'440Hz a220 A110
      e'330 e165
      b' 495
      1485/1484 f#"742 f#'371
      1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139
      417/416 g#208 G#104
      eb'312 eb156 Eb78
      bb'468 bb234 Bb117
      f'351
      1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131
      g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7
      d147
      441/a'440 cps

      on the keys:

      _____________________
      | c' 263 middle-C
      +---------|278 c#'=db'
      | d' 294
      +---------|294 eb'=d#'
      | e' 330
      +---------------------
      | f' 351
      +---------|371 f#'=gb'
      | g' 393
      +---------|416 g#'=ab'
      | a' 440 Hz
      +---------|468 bb'=a#'
      | b' 468
      +--------------------
      | c" 526
      +---------| c#"
      &ct...

      !septenarius440Hz.scl
      !
      sparschuh's septenarius @ middle c'=263Hz or a'=440Hz
      !
      12
      !
      278/263 ! C#
      294/263 ! D
      312/263 ! Eb
      330/263 ! E
      351/263 ! F
      351/263 ! F#
      393/263 ! G
      416/263 ! G#
      440/263 ! A
      468/263 ! Bb
      495/263 ! B
      2/1

      Just try it out to play in that yourself!

      http://www.strukturbildung.de/Andreas.Sparschuh
    • Gene Ward Smith
      ... F and F# are the same note.
      Message 2 of 26 , Apr 12 2:29 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>
        wrote:

        > !septenarius440Hz.scl
        > !
        > sparschuh's septenarius @ middle c'=263Hz or a'=440Hz
        > !
        > 12
        > !
        > 278/263 ! C#
        > 294/263 ! D
        > 312/263 ! Eb
        > 330/263 ! E
        > 351/263 ! F
        > 351/263 ! F#
        > 393/263 ! G
        > 416/263 ! G#
        > 440/263 ! A
        > 468/263 ! Bb
        > 495/263 ! B
        > 2/1

        F and F# are the same note.
      • Tom Dent
        Comments below! ... frequencies ... Instead of 496 and 372. This avoids having a wide e-b fifth and is better for G major and D major. ... I don t think this
        Message 3 of 26 , Apr 12 5:04 PM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Comments below!

          --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > >http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~tdent/septenarius.html
          >
          > W's modified stringlengths can be interpreted as absolute
          frequencies
          > of an 5ths circle:
          >
          > a'440Hz a220 A110
          > e'330 e165
          > b'495
          > 1485/1484 f#"742 f#'371

          Instead of 496 and 372. This avoids having a wide e-b fifth and is
          better for G major and D major.

          > 1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139
          > 417/416 g#208 G#104
          > eb'312 eb156 Eb78
          > bb'468 bb234 Bb117
          > f'351
          > 1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131
          > g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7

          I don't think this is so good, you have C-G tempered by 262/263 which
          is about 1/3 comma...

          Better to have 315/350 f'350 f175 and 525/524 c''524 c262 131 ... ?

          Then C-G is pure and

          > d147

          rather 1179/1176 d''588 d'294

          > 441/a'440 cps
          >
          > on the keys:
          [edited]
          > _____________________
          > | c' [262] middle-C
          > +---------|278 c#'=db'
          > | d' 294
          > +---------|[312] eb'=d#'
          > | e' 330
          > +---------------------
          > | f' [350]
          > +---------|371 f#'=gb'
          > | g' 393
          > +---------|416 g#'=ab'
          > | a' 440 Hz
          > +---------|468 bb'=a#'
          > | b' [495]
          > +--------------------
          > | c" [524]
          > +---------| c#"
          > &ct...
          >
          > !septenarius440Hz.scl
          > !
          > sparschuh's septenarius @ middle c'=263Hz or a'=440Hz
          > !
          > 12
          > !
          > 278/263 ! C#
          > 294/263 ! D
          > 312/263 ! Eb
          > 330/263 ! E
          > 351/263 ! F
          > 351/263 ! F# [should be 271]
          > 393/263 ! G
          > 416/263 ! G#
          > 440/263 ! A
          > 468/263 ! Bb
          > 495/263 ! B
          > 2/1
          >

          or:

          !septenarius440Hzmk2.scl
          !
          TD's septenarius @ middle c'=262Hz or a'=440Hz
          !
          12
          !
          278/262 ! C#
          294/262 ! D
          312/262 ! Eb
          330/262 ! E
          350/262 ! F
          371/262 ! F#
          393/262 ! G
          416/262 ! G#
          440/262 ! A
          468/262 ! Bb
          495/262 ! B
          2/1

          (cf. 12ET frequencies: 261.6, 277.2, 293.7, 311.1, 329.6, 349.2,
          370.0, 392.0, 415.3, 440.0, 466.2, 493.9 ...)

          Can one use the nice ratio 63/50 = 1.26 to build a 'septenarian' near-
          equal tuning?
          eg Eb-G = 150:189 ...
          via Eb150 Bb225 (675) F337 (1011) C505 (504) G378=189

          then continue:
          ... (567) D283 (849) A424=212 (636) E635 (634) B951 (2853/2848)
          F#356=178 C#267 (801) G#400 Eb300

          seems to work nicely at late Baroque pitch levels - only three pure
          fifths between Eb-Bb, G#-Eb, F#-C#.

          ~~~T~~~
        • Andreas Sparschuh
          ... right, in order to get rid of the oversharp wolfs in W s original stringlength numbers, alike in his famous #3 the quaternarius has only 4 flattend and 8
          Message 4 of 26 , Apr 13 11:24 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Comments below!
            >
            > > a'440Hz a220 A110
            > > e'330 e165
            > > b'495
            > > 1485/1484 f#"742 f#'371
            >
            > Instead of 496 and 372. This avoids having a wide e-b fifth and is
            > better for G major and D major.

            right, in order to get rid of the oversharp wolfs in W's original
            stringlength numbers, alike in his famous #3 the 'quaternarius'
            has only 4 flattend and 8 pure 5ths:
            A E B>F# C# G# Eb Bb F C>G>D>A

            >
            > > 1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139
            > > 417/416 g#208 G#104
            > > eb'312 eb156 Eb78
            > > bb'468 bb234 Bb117
            > > f'351
            > > 1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131
            > > g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7
            >
            > I don't think this is so good, you have C-G tempered by 262/263
            > which is about 1/3 comma...
            >
            ...flattend than a pure 5th: 3/2.
            So far about that strongest detuned 5th C>G.
            Consider accordingly the belonging 3rd C>E in the major-chord C>E>G:
            with compareable sharpness:
            e165 e'330 e"660 e'"1330/1315=5*c"263
            shortening by common factor 5 yiels
            a tempering of C>E about 264/265,
            so that the C-major chord consists in

            C(1/1)-E*(265/264)-G*(262/263)
            or
            4:(5*(265/264)):(6*262/263)
            instead barely 4:5:6 without the idea of tempering
            3rds and 5ths in the same range of magintude.

            Many 'experts' do recommend to sharpen the 3rds about the amount in
            amplitude alike the corresponding 5ths become flattened, so that the
            beatings of 3rds and 5ths beat almost the same in reverse directions.
            Skilled organ-builders use that effect in order to demonstrate
            that their robust organs survive even such impressive resonances.
            It appears that already
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnolt_Schlick
            knew that old well-known tuning-trick/method in his instructions.

            > Better to have 315/350 f'350 f175 and 525/524 c''524 c262 131 ... ?
            Good idea, if you intend to stay nearer to W's original version,
            when somehow aiming to approximate "ET" however.

            >
            > Then C-G is pure and
            makes that only sense according the above demands
            when C-E is also pure chosen?

            >
            > >
            Correction of: !septenarius440Hz.scl

            > > 351/263 ! F# [should be 271] for Gene: 371 is the correct pitch.

            > or:
            >
            > !septenarius440Hzmk2.scl
            > !
            > TD's septenarius @ middle c'=262Hz or a'=440Hz
            > !
            > 12
            > !
            > 278/262 ! C# short 138/131
            > 294/262 ! D short 147/131
            > 312/262 ! Eb short 156/131
            > 330/262 ! E short 165/131
            > 350/262 ! F short 175/131
            > 371/262 ! F#
            > 393/262 ! G
            > 416/262 ! G# 208/131
            > 440/262 ! A 220/131
            > 468/262 ! Bb 234/131
            > 495/262 ! B
            > 2/1

            The pure middle c' in reference to a'=440Hz becomes in the just case
            440Hz*3/5 = 264Hz. Hence i do prefer the nearer 263Hz instead
            yours lower 262Hz, which appears just a little bit to flat lowered
            in my personal taste, especially when having just intonation
            in mind or ear instead the virtual "et".
            Most professional and skilled tuners do to keep
            the frequent keys with few accidentials somehow purer than
            the less used keys with many accidentials, so that the
            strange keys got more pythagorean 3rds, by purer
            or even just pure 5ths inbetween them.

            >
            > (cf. 12ET frequencies: 261.6, 277.2, 293.7, 311.1, 329.6, 349.2,
            > 370.0, 392.0, 415.3, 440.0, 466.2, 493.9 ...)
            those irrational numbers are far to complicated for solving the
            problem. Who needs the advanced precision of 4 decimal digits
            in the octave from c' to c"?

            But if you want to approach "et" whatsoever, then 262 would be the
            better choice for converging "et" as the above approximation suggest.

            >
            > Can one use the nice ratio 63/50 = 1.26 to build a 'septenarian' >near-
            > equal tuning?
            I.m.o: the nearer one draws to approach "et",
            the most frequently used 3rds get to much worse detuned

            Luckily nobody can tune irrational intervals in practice,
            so that the worsest case: "et" remains barely a theoretically fiction,
            excluded from real implementation on a real sounding instrument.
            Simply try out how well can you reproduce by yours ears:
            on the one hand:
            a pure 5th ratio 3:2=1.5 ~702cents
            and on the other hand:
            sqrt(2) = 600 Cent "et"-tritous, that's geometrically interpreted:
            http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PythagorassConstant.html

            Experimental result:
            There is no psychoacusitcally evidence for departening
            the ratio of a 5th 3:2 for the benefit of sqrt(2) ET-tritone.
            Quoting Herrmann Helmholtz: "The ear prefers simple ratios."


            > eg Eb-G = 150:189 ...
            > via Eb150 Bb225 (675) F337 (1011) C505 (504) G378=189

            But by that procedure one does also loose to much of the 'Baroque'
            key-characteristics.
            http://www.societymusictheory.org/mto/issues/mto.95.1.4/mto.95.1.4.code.html
            http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonartencharakter
            >
            > then continue:
            > ... (567) D283 (849) A424=212 (636) E635 (634) B951 (2853/2848)
            > F#356=178 C#267 (801) G#400 Eb300
            >
            > seems to work nicely at late Baroque pitch levels - only three pure
            > fifths between Eb-Bb, G#-Eb, F#-C#.
            >
            hmm, is it still apt to call that 'baroque'-style?
            As far as i understood late "Baroque" post-meantone instructions:
            There i found a tendency to keep the 5ths inbetween the accidentials
            F#-C#-G#-Eb-Bb
            purer more pure (within the upper black keys on the piano)
            than in the ordinary F-C-G-D-A-E-B: that got generally more tempering.

            In extreme form i do start from my prototype model.
            The procedure consists in a chain of 11 almost pure 5ths,
            that contains the JI pitches, but also schismic Pythagorean-enharmonics:

            Here the chain
            F-A-C-E-G-B-D
            are all 3 pure major 4:5:6 chords
            in exact beatless just proportions:

            A 440. 220 110 55
            E 165
            B 495.
            F# 1485
            4455 C# 4454 2227
            6681 G# 6680 3340 1670 835
            2505 Eb 2504 1252 626 313.
            Bb 939
            2817 F 2816 1408 704 352. 176 88 44 22 11
            C 33
            G 99
            D 297. / 296 148 74 37
            111 A 110 55

            A E B F#~C#~G#~Eb Bb~F C G D~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

            The schisma 32805/32768=5*3^8/2^15=
            (4455/4454)(6681/6680)(2505/2504)(2817/2816)
            is tempered out by the subdivsion in to that
            product of 4 superparticular factors.
            Respectively the
            SC=81/80=(297/296)(111/110) into 2 parts at one @ D>A 40:27

            Rearranging same pitches in ascending order yields:

            C' 264Hz middle-C
            C# 278.375
            D' 297
            Eb 313
            E' 330
            F' 352
            F# 371.25
            G' 396
            G# 417.5
            A' 440Hz reference pitch
            Bb 469.5
            B' 495
            C" 528

            so far about the 11 other frquencies that i percieve instantly
            also in mind immediatley when hearing a 440Hz tuning-fork by ear,
            or simpy when imagening that pitch-levels enwraped when reading
            musical scores in any fitting tuning.

            schismatic_just440Hz.scl
            !
            sparschuh's-schisma-subdivision(4455/4454)(6681/6680)(2505/2504)(2817/2816)
            !
            2227/2112 ! C#
            9/8 ! D
            313/264 ! Eb
            5/4 ! E
            4/3 ! F
            45/32 ! F#
            3/2 ! G
            835/528 ! G#
            5/3 ! A=440Hz
            313/176 ! Bb
            15/8 ! B
            2/1

            But, how about that almost similar alternative one at the moment on my
            piano?

            A 440. 220 110
            330 E 329.
            B 987
            2961 F# 2960 1480 740 370. 185
            C# 555
            1665 G# 1664 832 416. 208 104 52 26 13
            Eb 39
            Bb 117
            F 351.
            1053 C 1052 526 263.
            789 G 788 394. 197
            591 D 590 285./284 147
            441 A 440. (or 3*285=885 A 880 440.)

            with strongest tempering @ D>A: 885/880=(285/284)(441/440)=177/176
            but still less than SC^(1/2) ~161/160 or ~162/161,
            hence rather tolerable than
            the ancient Erlangen-monochord or Kirnberger#1,
            that charge a full SC on D>A alike the above 'schismatic_just.scl'.

            So far my reccomendation for those who prefer to stay nearer at JI
            than to the i.m.o. over-detuned "ET", that i do meanwhile consider as
            outdated intuneable fiction.

            sparschuh_gothic_style440Hz.scl
            !
            12
            !
            555/526 ! C# 277.5 Hz
            285/263 ! D
            312/263 ! Eb
            329/263 ! E
            351/263 ! F
            370/263 ! F#
            394/263 ! G
            416/263 ! G#
            440/263 ! A reference-pitch 440Hz
            468/263 ! Bb
            987/526 ! B 493.5 Hz
            2/1

            on the keys

            +-----------
            | C 263 middle-C
            +--|277.5=C#
            | D 285
            +--|312=Eb
            | E 329
            +-----------
            | F 351
            +--|370=F#
            | G 394
            +--|416=G#
            | A 440
            +--|468=Bb
            | B 493.5
            +-----------
            | C'526
            &ct.

            If you dont't like any of that, it's up to you to create yours own
            personal version, according yours private preferences.

            A.S.
          • Andreas Sparschuh
            ... agreed, hence i do return to W s original 131. ... also right, hence so the resulting ratios get even more simple: The calculations benefit from that by
            Message 5 of 26 , Apr 17 11:49 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
              >
              > > 1113/1112 c#"556 c#'278 c#139
              > > 417/416 g#208 G#104
              > > eb'312 eb156 Eb78
              > > bb'468 bb234 Bb117
              > > f'351
              > > 1053/1052 c"526 c'263/262 131
              > > g'393/392 196 98 49=7*7
              >
              > I don't think this is so good, you have C-G tempered by 262/263
              > which
              > is about 1/3 comma...
              agreed, hence i do return to W's original 131.
              >
              > Better to have 315/350 f'350 f175 and 525/524 c''524 c262 131 ... ?
              >
              also right, hence so the resulting ratios get even more simple:
              The calculations benefit from that by less computational0 overhead.

              Follow the classical way:
              start traditional @ pitch-class GAMMA=G alike in:

              http://www.celestialmonochord.org/log/images/celestial_monochord.jpg

              GG 49 := 7*7 (GAMMA-ut, the empty string in the picture)
              D 147
              3D441 > a'440 a220 A110 AA55Hz=the AA-string of a double-bass
              e 165
              3e495 > b'494 b247
              3b741 > f#"740 f#'370 f#185
              c# "555
              3c#"1665 > g#"'1664 g#"832 g#'416 g#208 G#104 GG#52 GGG#26 GGGG#13
              EEb 39
              Bb 117
              3Bb351 > f'350 f175
              3f525 > c"524 c'263 c131
              3c393 > g'392 g196 G98 GG49=7^2 returned

              !septenarius_GG49Hz.scl
              sparschuh's version @ middle-c'=262Hz or a'=440Hz
              12
              !absolute pitches relativ to c=131 Hz
              555/524 ! c# 138.75 Hz
              147/131 ! d
              156/131 ! eb
              165/131 ! e
              175/131 ! f
              185/131 ! f#
              196/131 ! g
              208/131 ! g#
              220/131 ! a 440Hz/2
              234/131 ! bb
              247/131 ! b
              2/1


              That results on my old piano in the first/lowest octave:

              AAA 27.5 Hz lowest pitch, on the first white key on the left side
              BBBb29.25 next upper black key
              BBB 30.875 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bass "at~30.87 hertz"..
              CC_ 32.875
              CC# 34.6875 := c"555/16
              DD_ 36.75
              EEb 39 := GGGG#13Hz*3
              EE_ 41.25 ..."E1 (on standard four-string basses) at ~41.20 Hz
              FF_ 43.75
              FF# 46.25
              GG_ 49 := 7*7 Werckmeister's/Scheibler's initial septimal choice
              GG# 52 = GGGG#13Hz*4
              AA_ 55 = 440Hz/8 ; 3 octaves below Scheibler's choice

              http://mmd.foxtail.com/Tech/jorgensen.html
              #133: "Johann Heinrich Scheibler's metronome method of 1836"

              http://www.41hz.com
              "41 Hz is the frequency of the low E string on a double bass or an
              electric bass." if it has none additional 5th string
              for midi(B0)=BBB 30.875 Hz an 2nd above AAA 27.5 Hz,
              the lowest A on the piano, without attending or even careing
              "string-imharmonicty"
              http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN0000760000S1000S22000004&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

              Consider the 3rds qualities in violins empty sting G-D-A-E block order:

              1: G > B > Eb> G
              2: D > F#> Bb> D
              3: A > C#> F > A
              4: E > G#> C > E

              1: G > B > Eb > G.
              absolute analysis:
              GG 49.
              5*49 = 245 < b'247 < 248 124 62 31
              5*31 = 155 < eb156 Eb78 EEb39
              5*39 = 195 < g196 G98 GG7*7.
              relative diesis 128/125 subpartition:
              G 123.5/122.5 B 96/95 Eb 196/195 G
              G ~14.1 cents B ~18.1 Eb ~ 8.86c G

              2: D > F# > Bb > D.
              abs:
              d147. < 148 74 37
              5*37 = f#185 < 186 93
              5*31*3=3*155 < 156*3 78*3 39*3 = Bb117
              5*39*3=3*195 < 196*3 98*3 49*3 = d147.
              rel:
              D 148/147 F# (1/9+85)/(84+1/9) Bb 196/195 D
              D ~ 11.4c F# ~ 20.5 cents Bb ~ 8.86cents D

              3: A > C# > F > A.
              abs:
              AA55. A110 < 111 = 37*3
              5*111= c#"555 = 5*111 < 112*5 56*5 28*5 14*5 7*5
              5*35 = f175 < 176 88 44 22 11
              5*11 = AA55.
              rel:
              A 111/110 C# 112/111 F 176/175 A ; with all 3 factors superparticular
              A ~ 15.7c C# ~ 15.5c F ~ 9.86c A

              4: E > G#> C > E.
              abs:
              e165. < 166 83
              5*83 = 415 < g#'416 g#208 G#104 GG#52 GGG#26 GGGG#13 §§
              5*13 = 65 130 < c131 < 132 66 33
              5*33 = e165.
              rel:
              E (6/7+118)/(117+6/7) G# 131/130 C 132/131 E
              E ~ 14.6 cents ~ G# ~ 13.3 cents C ~ 13.2c E
              §§ GGGG# 13 Hz has negative "midi"-index G#_-1,
              which midi-keyboard supports negative key indices?


              Summary:
              3rds martix in "Cents"
              5ths in top>down order
              3rds in left>right direction respectively:

              1: G 14.1 B_ 18.1 Eb 8.86 G
              2: D 11.4 F# 20.5 Bb 8.86 D
              3: A 15.7 C# 15.5 F_ 9.86 A
              4: E 14.6 G# 13.3 C_ 13.2 E

              Conversely "ET" detunes all 3rds about the same amount:
              (128/125)^(1/3) = ~13.7Cents or ~127/126,
              Attend that: the "septenarius" fits therefore better than ET to
              horns and trumpets in Eb,Bb & F, with inherent natural
              3rds Eb>G, Bb>D, & F>A that turn out less than 10Cents out of tune
              in the septenarius case.

              > (cf. 12ET frequencies: 261.6, 277.2, 293.7, 311.1, 329.6, 349.2,
              > 370.0, 392.0, 415.3, 440.0, 466.2, 493.9 ...)

              In the "ET" case, it is difficult to resolve the
              septenarian root-factors above alike:
              11,13,31,37 & 83 below the well known 3,5 & 7 limits.
              >
              > Can one use the nice ratio 63/50 = 1.26 to build a 'septenarian' >near-
              > equal tuning?
              on the one hand is:
              (63/50)(4/5)=126/125
              but but on the other side
              the diesis 128/125=(128/127)(127/126)(126/125)
              contains 3 factors.
              hence:
              (63/50)^3 = 2.000376... > 2/1
              overstretched octave
              or as superparticular ratio:
              ((63/50)^3)/2= 250047/250000=(7/47+5320)/(5319+7/47)
              ~1/2 per mille
              but a better approximation of the octave delivers 127/126
              the factor in the middle:
              ((5 / 4) * (127 / 126))^3 = ~1.99999802............




              > eg Eb-G = 150:189 ...
              > via Eb150 Bb225 (675) F337 (1011) C505 (504) G378=189
              >
              > then continue:
              > ... (567) D283 (849) A424=212 (636) E635 (634) B951 (2853/2848)
              > F#356=178 C#267 (801) G#400 Eb300
              >
              > seems to work nicely at late Baroque pitch levels - only three pure
              > fifths between Eb-Bb, G#-Eb, F#-C#.
              >
              that is expanded:
              A 424 212
              3A636 > E635 > 634 317
              B951 > 950 475
              3*475=1425 > F#1424 712 356 178 89
              C# 267
              801 > G# 800 400 200 100 50 25 Werckmeister's tief-Cammerthon 400Hz
              Eb 75
              Bb 225
              675 > F 674 337
              1011 > C 1050 505 > 504 252 126 63
              G 189
              567 > D 566 283
              849 > A 848 424

              recombining that 5ths-circle in ascending ordered pitches yields:
              C 252.5 Hz middle_C
              C#267
              D 283
              Eb300
              E 317.5 or better 317?
              F 337
              F#356
              G 378
              G#400 Beekman's, Descartes's, Mersenne's & Sauveur's standard-pitch
              A 424
              Bb450
              B 475.5 or better 475?
              C'505

              T.D. remarked already in his numbers inbetween:

              >B951 (2853/2848)
              > F#356

              that there appears an unsatisfactory irregular gap:
              of 2853/2848 = 570.6/569.6 = (951/950)(1425/1424)
              induced by the choice of
              E 635 > 634 317 instead
              635 > E 634 317
              That results in the above none-integral superparticular ratio bug.

              Hence i do suggest to replace
              by the tiny changes
              1: E 635-->>>634
              2: B 951-->>>950
              in order to fix the bug.

              so that now all 5th-tempering steps become integral superparticular
              ratios, without any exception:

              A 424 212 106
              3A=318 E 317 instead formerly 317.5
              3E=951 B 950 475 instead formerly 951 475.5
              3B=1425 F# 1424 712 356 178 89
              &ct.
              the rest of the circle remains unchanged.
              Is that ok?


              Analysis of the:
              3rds sharpness, -how much wider than 5/4-
              per diesis subpartition into superparticular factors,
              so that the product of 3 tempered 5ths results an octave
              in each of the 4 blocks:

              1: G > B > Eb > G.
              abs:
              G378. 189 > 190 95
              5*95 = B 475 < 480 240 120 60 30 15
              5*15 = Eb75
              5*75 = 3*125 < 126*3 = G378.
              rel. 2^7/5^3=128/125=
              G 190/189 B 160/159 Eb 126/125 G remember (63/50)(4/5)=126/125
              ?or formerly in the original version:
              ?G378. 189 > 190 95
              ?5*95 = 475 950 < B951 < 960 480 240 120 60 30 15
              ?......
              ?rel. 2^7/5^3=128/125=
              ?G (190/189)(951/950) B 320/317=(2/3+106)/(105+2/3) Eb 126/125 G
              That appears i.m.o. much more complicated than my suggested change.

              2: D > F# > Bb > D.
              abs:
              D283. < 284 142 71
              5* 71 = 355 < F#356 178 89 < 90 45
              5* 45 = Bb225 < 226 113
              5*113 = 565 < D556 283.
              rel. 128/125=
              D (284/283)(356/355) F# 90/89 Bb (226/225)(556/565) D

              3: A > C# > F > A.
              abs:
              A424. 212 106 53
              5* 53 = 265 < C#267 < 268 134 67
              5* 67 = 335 < F 337 < 338 169
              5*169 = 845 < A 848 424.
              rel: 128/125=
              A 133.5/123.5 C# (268/267)(168.5/166.5) F >>>
              >>> F (338/337)((2/3+282)/(281+2/3)) A

              4: E > G# > C > E.
              E 317. < 320 160 80 40 20
              5* 20 = G#100 < 101
              5*101 = C 505 < 506 253
              5*253 = 1265 < E 1268 634 317.
              rel: 128/125=
              E (2/3+106)/(105+2/3) G# 101/100 C (506/505)/(422.666.../421.666...) E
              ?or formerly
              ?E 635? > 640 320 .....
              ?....&ct. alike above...
              ?....
              ?5*253 =1265 < 1270 635?

              try to find out similar improvements in order to reduce the ratios
              to less complicated proportions

              have a lot of fun in whatever tuning you do prefer
              A.S.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.