Topic: Another Bach tuning comparison

3 scales

Thread (26 messages)

From: Herman Miller (2007-01-17)
Subject: Another Bach tuning comparison

One of the things about well-temperaments is that you can't get much of 
a feel for the difference between them without playing in all the keys, 
especially the more remote ones. Some of them are pretty bad in C# 
major! But intermediate keys, in this case C minor, can be harder to 
judge. See what you think of these. (Keep in mind I'm not a professional 
pianist...)

http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3

One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one? Which 
of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less appropriate? 
(You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now I'll 
keep them a mystery.)

All of these were rendered from the identical MIDI file using the 
rgc:audio z3ta+ and scales from the Scala archive. For additional 
comparison you can check these versions out:

http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3

My personal experience is that Werckmeister III is a perfectly good 
tuning for Bach, but I'm open to other possibilities, and a few of the 
alternatives sound good as well. For a more extreme test, try the C# 
major prelude from WTC I...

From: David Bowen (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

Apparently nobody read my post about ABX.

-Carl

From: Cameron Bobro (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

Had it for years, someone put up the link on a recording forum IIRC.

It's a great confidence builder.


--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "David Bowen" <dmb0317@...> wrote:
>
> A few months back I downloaded  a program called winabx that 
allows you to
> do A/B comparisons of two sound files. The program randomly 
selects one of
> the two files as the X and it's the listener's job to identify the 
X as
> either A or B given as many replays of A, B, and X as the listener 
needs.
> The program lets you know when you have achieved a statistically 
significant
> success rate. I would suggest that the first step is getting ones 
ears tuned
> up to the point where they can tell the difference between files in
> different tunings and then worry about actually identifying the 
tunings.
> 
> David Bowen
>

From: Cameron Bobro (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

Interesting, four examples feels kind of overwhelming today, but 
anyway, a first reaction without thinking: they're all different in 
character, more so than in Carl's example. And different in overall 
pitch. 2c sounds sour, and 2d, sweet. 

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> One of the things about well-temperaments is that you can't get 
much of 
> a feel for the difference between them without playing in all the 
keys, 
> especially the more remote ones. Some of them are pretty bad in C# 
> major! But intermediate keys, in this case C minor, can be harder 
to 
> judge. See what you think of these. (Keep in mind I'm not a 
professional 
> pianist...)
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> 
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one? 
Which 
> of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less 
appropriate? 
> (You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now 
I'll 
> keep them a mystery.)
> 
> All of these were rendered from the identical MIDI file using the 
> rgc:audio z3ta+ and scales from the Scala archive. For additional 
> comparison you can check these versions out:
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
> 
> My personal experience is that Werckmeister III is a perfectly 
good 
> tuning for Bach, but I'm open to other possibilities, and a few of 
the 
> alternatives sound good as well. For a more extreme test, try the 
C# 
> major prelude from WTC I...
>

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> 
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one?

2c sounds like meantone.

Beyond that, it's harder.  2a is perhaps ET, and
2b and 2d some sort of well temperaments.

> Which of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are
> less appropriate?

2c sounds wrong for Bach.  2b is maybe my favorite.  But
the differences between b/d are basically too subtle for me
to report on without ABX.

> For a more extreme test, try the C# 
> major prelude from WTC I...

One of the few 5-voice pieces Bach ever wrote.

-Carl

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

> Interesting, four examples feels kind of overwhelming today, but 
> anyway, a first reaction without thinking: they're all different in 
> character, more so than in Carl's example. And different in overall 
> pitch. 2c sounds sour, and 2d, sweet.

Whatever the sourness of meantone Bach is caused by (and I'd
like to know), it doesn't seem to bother Gene.

-Carl

From: Aaron Krister Johnson (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> > Herman: For a more extreme test, try the C# 
> > major prelude from WTC I...
> 
> Carl: One of the few 5-voice pieces Bach ever wrote.

Carl, surely you mean the _fugue_ in c# *minor*. The prelude is
basically a two-vioced composition, and the fugue for that one is
3-voiced.

-A.

From: Aaron Krister Johnson (2007-01-17)
Subject: Aaron on the hot seat? (was Re: Another Bach tuning comparison)

Herman, all,

I finally listened to these each once....not 'e' 'f' and 'g', though, yet.

I'll take a stab and say that 'd' was WerckIII--it didn't sound all
that bad to me, although I know this piece well, and I recognized the
Ab-C thirds were wide-ish sounding, which is why I would guess that
this is a tuning where Ab-C was somewhere near Pythagorean...hence my
choice of this being WerckIII. 'c', I agree with Carl, was probably
some kind of meantone, and didn't work for Bach. My response to the
first two, 'a' and 'b', was that they were quite similar. I might have
to listen again closer to hear real differences--whatever they were
were too subtle to me on one hearing.

BTW, Herman---the quality of the mp3s was terrible---I had all sorts
of noise---was that me, or all the files really poor (i.e.
low-bitrate)? Also, if you are not a professional pianist, and you
played that in live realtime, kudos, they would indicate you have a
decent technique, but I would say they are rather expressionless....Or
did you take a bland sequence of the net, or step sequence them in, etc.?

Cheers,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> One of the things about well-temperaments is that you can't get much of 
> a feel for the difference between them without playing in all the keys, 
> especially the more remote ones. Some of them are pretty bad in C# 
> major! But intermediate keys, in this case C minor, can be harder to 
> judge. See what you think of these. (Keep in mind I'm not a
professional 
> pianist...)
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> 
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one?
Which 
> of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less appropriate? 
> (You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now I'll 
> keep them a mystery.)

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

> > > Herman: For a more extreme test, try the C# 
> > > major prelude from WTC I...
> > 
> > Carl: One of the few 5-voice pieces Bach ever wrote.
> 
> Carl, surely you mean the _fugue_ in c# *minor*. The prelude is
> basically a two-vioced composition, and the fugue for that one is
> 3-voiced.

Yes, sorry.  -Carl

From: Gene Ward Smith (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > Interesting, four examples feels kind of overwhelming today, but 
> > anyway, a first reaction without thinking: they're all different in 
> > character, more so than in Carl's example. And different in overall 
> > pitch. 2c sounds sour, and 2d, sweet.
> 
> Whatever the sourness of meantone Bach is caused by (and I'd
> like to know), it doesn't seem to bother Gene.

Eh? I haven't even commented on this example. As for my own testing of 
the hypothesis of meantone tuning for WTC1, that involves moving the 
meantone compass to correspond to the key. Since the harmony sticks 
inside of a translated compass, you don't get a bunch of sour notes.

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-17)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

> > Whatever the sourness of meantone Bach is caused by (and I'd
> > like to know), it doesn't seem to bother Gene.
> 
> Eh? I haven't even commented on this example. As for my own testing of 
> the hypothesis of meantone tuning for WTC1, that involves moving the 
> meantone compass to correspond to the key. Since the harmony sticks 
> inside of a translated compass, you don't get a bunch of sour notes.

But your testings still sounded sour to me, and to a friend.

-Carl

From: Ozan Yarman (2007-01-18)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

I simply adore that one. Very gloomy, so menacing...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@dividebypi.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 Ocak 2007 \ufffdar\ufffdamba 20:20
Subject: [tuning] Re: Another Bach tuning comparison


> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > Herman: For a more extreme test, try the C#
> > > major prelude from WTC I...
> >
> > Carl: One of the few 5-voice pieces Bach ever wrote.
>
> Carl, surely you mean the _fugue_ in c# *minor*. The prelude is
> basically a two-vioced composition, and the fugue for that one is
> 3-voiced.
>
> -A.
>
>
>

From: Herman Miller (2007-01-18)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Aaron on the hot seat? (was Re: Another Bach tuning comparison)

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> Herman, all,
> 
> I finally listened to these each once....not 'e' 'f' and 'g', though, yet.
> 
> I'll take a stab and say that 'd' was WerckIII--it didn't sound all
> that bad to me, although I know this piece well, and I recognized the
> Ab-C thirds were wide-ish sounding, which is why I would guess that
> this is a tuning where Ab-C was somewhere near Pythagorean...hence my
> choice of this being WerckIII. 'c', I agree with Carl, was probably
> some kind of meantone, and didn't work for Bach. My response to the
> first two, 'a' and 'b', was that they were quite similar. I might have
> to listen again closer to hear real differences--whatever they were
> were too subtle to me on one hearing.
> 
> BTW, Herman---the quality of the mp3s was terrible---I had all sorts
> of noise---was that me, or all the files really poor (i.e.
> low-bitrate)? Also, if you are not a professional pianist, and you
> played that in live realtime, kudos, they would indicate you have a
> decent technique, but I would say they are rather expressionless....Or
> did you take a bland sequence of the net, or step sequence them in, etc.?

I don't recall what speed I played it (it was an old file I had lying 
around), but it probably wasn't full speed. And I was obviously playing 
to the beat of the metronome if I look at the MIDI file, which explains 
why it sounds expressionless. Probably not the best way to play Bach!

The bit rate is pretty low to save space, but there shouldn't have been 
much noise. I don't hear any noise when I play them -- nothing I can 
hear over the noise of my computer fan, at any rate. There's a bit of 
what sounds like an echo effect, which it turns out is an unintended 
release of the envelope that's slower than what I was intending.

From: Brad Lehman (2007-01-18)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> 
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one? 
> Which of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less 
> appropriate? 


All four of these sounded skippy when played on my rather slow 
system.  Yesterday I couldn't get c and d to play at all.  But, I 
gave them another try today and got through them without *too* many 
dropouts.

None of them "feel" right for Bach, to me.  Both a and b are semi-
decent, not obnoxious, and I've heard a lot worse; a is better than b.

Example c is from another planet.  I really liked it, just for the 
exoticism, but I wouldn't consider using it seriously for this 
piece.  :)

Example d is obviously the Werckmeister; obvious as early as the 5th 
note (the Ab approached from G, and the Ab being way too low 
melodically as is its wont in WerckIII)...and that's before any of 
the harmony comes in, which makes it even more obnoxious later.  Ugh.

Yes?


Brad Lehman (all of these deliberately without putting much thought 
into it, but going on listening impression and first instincts)

From: Aaron Krister Johnson (2007-01-18)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...> wrote:

> Example d is obviously the Werckmeister; obvious as early as the 5th 
> note (the Ab approached from G, and the Ab being way too low 
> melodically as is its wont in WerckIII)...and that's before any of 
> the harmony comes in, which makes it even more obnoxious later.  Ugh.

As I wrote earlier, I would have to agree with you that example 'd' is
WerckIII. I have less a hatred than you about the melodic effect, but
I have to say, like you, I definately prefer WTs for Bach that have
mellower thirds than Pythagorean.

-A.

From: Ozan Yarman (2007-01-19)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison

I agree that Werckmeister III is the fourth one. I also noticed that you
have used the frequeny 261.626 hz for middle C.

As for appropriateness, 2a is fine, 2b is a little unbalanced (C-Eb is a
little awry), 2c is meantonish and completely improper in the case of this
particular fugue, 2d sounds very nice.

2e seems to exhibit severe problems in simple keys, 2f did not appeal to me
very much as it sounds edgy, 2g is psychedelic! but quite improper for Bach
in my opinion.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herman Miller" <hmiller@IO.COM>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 Ocak 2007 \ufffdar\ufffdamba 5:24
Subject: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison


> One of the things about well-temperaments is that you can't get much of
> a feel for the difference between them without playing in all the keys,
> especially the more remote ones. Some of them are pretty bad in C#
> major! But intermediate keys, in this case C minor, can be harder to
> judge. See what you think of these. (Keep in mind I'm not a professional
> pianist...)
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
>
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one? Which
> of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less appropriate?
> (You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now I'll
> keep them a mystery.)
>
> All of these were rendered from the identical MIDI file using the
> rgc:audio z3ta+ and scales from the Scala archive. For additional
> comparison you can check these versions out:
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
>
> My personal experience is that Werckmeister III is a perfectly good
> tuning for Bach, but I'm open to other possibilities, and a few of the
> alternatives sound good as well. For a more extreme test, try the C#
> major prelude from WTC I...
>
>

From: Herman Miller (2007-01-19)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison

Sorry about the sound quality of the original files. I got rid of the 
release problem with the envelopes (the slight "echo" effect after the 
notes) and used a slightly better quality setting for the mp3 
compression. Hopefully the new versions will be easier to compare. More 
notes to follow. If you don't want to know which version is the ET 
version, save this message and come back to it later.

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

...

.

.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> 
> One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which one? Which 
> of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less appropriate? 
> (You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now I'll 
> keep them a mystery.)

As you've probably guessed by now, fugue2c is definitely NOT any kind of 
well temperament. The other three of these are well-temperaments.

> All of these were rendered from the identical MIDI file using the 
> rgc:audio z3ta+ and scales from the Scala archive. For additional 
> comparison you can check these versions out:
> 
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3

And the ET version is ... fugue2e! As you've probably guessed if you 
listened to the others, fugue2g is another one of those ... scales that 
isn't a well-temperament. That leaves fugue2f as ... you guessed it, 
another well-temperament.

From: Gene Ward Smith (2007-01-19)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> > 
> > One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell which 
one? Which 
> > of these scales "feel" right for Bach and which are less 
appropriate? 
> > (You can guess what the other scales are if you like, but for now 
I'll 
> > keep them a mystery.)

I'll cast my vote for 2b.

> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
> 
> And the ET version is ... fugue2e! 

Much as I hate to say it, I don't think 2e is the worst choice.

From: Gordon Rumson (2007-01-19)
Subject: Werck III and Jorgenson

Greetings,

Actually, I almost hate to draw attention to this link.  As if we've  
not had enough bitter fighting.  Here's a page that will be of interest:

http://www.polettipiano.com/Pages/pag1engpaul.html

All best wishes for a peaceful world and list,

Gordon Rumson

From: Gene Ward Smith (2007-01-19)
Subject: Re: Werck III and Jorgenson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Gordon Rumson <rumsong@...> wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> 
> Actually, I almost hate to draw attention to this link.  As if we've  
> not had enough bitter fighting.  Here's a page that will be of 
interest:
> 
> http://www.polettipiano.com/Pages/pag1engpaul.html

Werckmeister sometimes seems to mean Didymus comma and sometimes 
Pythagoras comma when he says "comma", but we can conclude from this 
that he favors having no fifths flatter than 1/8 Pythagorean comma, and 
assumes some might be pure but never sharp. We want the average 
flatness to be 1/12 Pythagoran comma, which means we could have eight 
fifths flat by 1/8 Pythagorean comma and four pure fifths and fit these 
prescriptions. So if we have eight fifths of 699 cents and four of 702 
cents to play with, what can we come up with? I could check to see if 
that fits some known historical temperaments but maybe someone knows.

One thing for sure, it doesn't fit Werckmeister3--that has four fifths 
flat by 1/4 Pythagoran comma and eight pure fifths instead. In fact, 
the temperaments we've mostly been discussing are too irregular for 
Werckmeister, according to this.

From: Carl Lumma (2007-01-20)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

Hi Herman,

> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> > 
> > One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell
> > which one? Which of these scales "feel" right for Bach
> > and which are less appropriate?
>
> As you've probably guessed by now, fugue2c is definitely
> NOT any kind of well temperament. The other three of these
> are well-temperaments.
//
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
> 
> And the ET version is ... fugue2e!

Why'd you have to tell us so close to where we have to
download the files?

I didn't listen to this second group of files the first
time I tried this test.  I can definitely hear that 2e
is ET.  Though if I remember the timbre you were using
before, I might not have detected it then.

2f is very interesting.  What is it?

2g sounds sour.

-Carl

From: Tom Dent (2007-01-20)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Herman,
> 
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3
> > > 
> > > One of these is tuned in Werckmeister III. Can you tell
> > > which one? Which of these scales "feel" right for Bach
> > > and which are less appropriate?
> >
> > As you've probably guessed by now, fugue2c is definitely
> > NOT any kind of well temperament. The other three of these
> > are well-temperaments.
> //
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
> > > http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
> > 
> > And the ET version is ... fugue2e!
> 

If 'd' is really 'WIII' (or even if it isn't!) then I don't think it
comes off at all badly. Ab-C doesn't serve as a point of rest - but
the way the piece is composed, it needn't.

However, 'b' has some chords in odd places that seem pretty harsh even
in passing and I wouldn't go for it. Sure 'b' isn't old Werckie?

I'm astonished at the rhythmic regularity of the playing! I'd almost
have thought it synthesized, except for the gradations in dynamic.

'c' is pleasantly strange (must be properly-spelled meantone) sounding
almost like a doo-wop group, not a keyboard at all; 'g' unpleasantly
strange (badly-spelled meantone?).

~~~T~~~

From: Herman Miller (2007-01-20)
Subject: Re: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison

And now for the results.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3

2a is perhaps ET (Carl Lumma)
Both a and b are semi-decent, not obnoxious, and I've heard a lot worse; 
a is better than b. (Brad Lehman)
2a is fine (Ozan Yarman)

! sorge3.scl
!
Georg Andreas Sorge, 1758 

  12
!
  96.09000
  196.09000
  298.04500
  394.13500
  4/3
  596.09000
  698.04500
  798.04500
  894.13500
  998.04500
  1096.09000
  2/1

I did some tests of my own with Winamp in shuffle mode before putting 
these samples up, and I consistently misidentified this one as ET. I 
wondered if anyone else would have the same reaction.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3

2b and 2d some sort of well temperaments. 2b is maybe my favorite. But
the differences between b/d are basically too subtle for me
to report on without ABX. (Carl Lumma)
2b is a little unbalanced (C-Eb is a little awry) (Ozan Yarman)
I'll cast my vote for 2b. (Gene Ward Smith)

! werck3.scl
!
Andreas Werckmeister's temperament III (the most famous one, 1681)
  12
!
  256/243
  192.18000
  32/27
  390.22500
  4/3
  1024/729
  696.09000
  128/81
  888.26999
  16/9
  1092.18000
  2/1

And here it is. Interesting how mixed the reactions were; I guess this 
isn't one of Werckmeister's better keys.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3

2c sounds sour (Cameron Bobro)
2c sounds like meantone. 2c sounds wrong for Bach. (Carl Lumma)
'c', I agree with Carl, was probably some kind of meantone, and didn't 
work for Bach (Aaron Krister Johnson)
Example c is from another planet. (Brad Lehman)
2c is meantonish and completely improper in the case of this particular 
fugue (Ozan Yarman)

! duodene.scl
!
Ellis's Duodene : genus [33355] 

  12
!
  16/15
  9/8
  6/5
  5/4
  4/3
  45/32
  3/2
  8/5
  5/3
  9/5
  15/8
  2

What surprised me when I tried this is that I was expecting something 
totally horrible, but it actually ended up better than I was expecting! 
Obviously something Bach would never have used, but interesting in a way.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3

2d [sounds] sweet (Cameron Bobro)
2b and 2d some sort of well temperaments (Carl Lumma)
I'll take a stab and say that 'd' was WerckIII (Aaron Krister Johnson)
Example d is obviously the Werckmeister (Brad Lehman)
I agree that Werckmeister III is the fourth one (Ozan Yarman)
2d sounds very nice (Ozan Yarman)

! young.scl
!
Thomas Young well temperament (1807), also Luigi Malerbi nr.2 (1794)
  12
!
  256/243
  196.09000
  32/27
  392.18000
  4/3
  1024/729
  698.04500
  128/81
  894.13500
  16/9
  1090.22500
  2/1

I was surprised at first how easy it was to confuse Young with 
Werckmeister, since the two are quite different. But looking at the 
Scala files, you can see that they actually share quite a few notes.

And for the bonus examples:

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3
2e seems to exhibit severe problems in simple keys (Ozan Yarman)
Much as I hate to say it, I don't think 2e is the worst choice. (Gene 
Ward Smith)

(This is equal temperament.)

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3
2f did not appeal to me very much as it sounds edgy (Ozan Yarman)

! kirnberger3.scl
!
Kirnberger 3: 1/4 synt. comma (1744)
  12
!
  135/128
  193.15686
  32/27
  5/4
  4/3
  45/32
  696.57843
  405/256
  889.73529
  16/9
  15/8
  2/1

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3
2g is psychedelic! but quite improper for Bach in my opinion. (Ozan Yarman)

! super_12.scl
!
Most equal superparticular 12-tone scale 

  12
!
  16/15
  17/15
  6/5
  19/15
  4/3
  64/45
  68/45
  8/5
  76/45
  16/9
  17/9
  2/1

From: Mohajeri Shahin (2007-01-21)
Subject: RE: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison

Hi herman
Most equal superparticular 12-tone scale  is based on 45-ADO and you can see this scale in VISUAL TEMPERAMENT ANALYZER:
http://240edo.googlepages.com/Bach-45-ADO.xls
 
 
 

Shaahin Mohajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site?? ???? ????? ??????  <http://240edo.googlepages.com/> 

My farsi page in Harmonytalk   ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ???  <http://www.harmonytalk.com/mohajeri> 

Shaahin Mohajeri in Wikipedia  ????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaahin_mohajeri> 

 

________________________________

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Herman Miller
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:12 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Another Bach tuning comparison



And now for the results.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2a.mp3> 

2a is perhaps ET (Carl Lumma)
Both a and b are semi-decent, not obnoxious, and I've heard a lot worse; 
a is better than b. (Brad Lehman)
2a is fine (Ozan Yarman)

! sorge3.scl
!
Georg Andreas Sorge, 1758 

12
!
96.09000
196.09000
298.04500
394.13500
4/3
596.09000
698.04500
798.04500
894.13500
998.04500
1096.09000
2/1

I did some tests of my own with Winamp in shuffle mode before putting 
these samples up, and I consistently misidentified this one as ET. I 
wondered if anyone else would have the same reaction.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2b.mp3> 

2b and 2d some sort of well temperaments. 2b is maybe my favorite. But
the differences between b/d are basically too subtle for me
to report on without ABX. (Carl Lumma)
2b is a little unbalanced (C-Eb is a little awry) (Ozan Yarman)
I'll cast my vote for 2b. (Gene Ward Smith)

! werck3.scl
!
Andreas Werckmeister's temperament III (the most famous one, 1681)
12
!
256/243
192.18000
32/27
390.22500
4/3
1024/729
696.09000
128/81
888.26999
16/9
1092.18000
2/1

And here it is. Interesting how mixed the reactions were; I guess this 
isn't one of Werckmeister's better keys.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2c.mp3> 

2c sounds sour (Cameron Bobro)
2c sounds like meantone. 2c sounds wrong for Bach. (Carl Lumma)
'c', I agree with Carl, was probably some kind of meantone, and didn't 
work for Bach (Aaron Krister Johnson)
Example c is from another planet. (Brad Lehman)
2c is meantonish and completely improper in the case of this particular 
fugue (Ozan Yarman)

! duodene.scl
!
Ellis's Duodene : genus [33355] 

12
!
16/15
9/8
6/5
5/4
4/3
45/32
3/2
8/5
5/3
9/5
15/8
2

What surprised me when I tried this is that I was expecting something 
totally horrible, but it actually ended up better than I was expecting! 
Obviously something Bach would never have used, but interesting in a way.

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2d.mp3> 

2d [sounds] sweet (Cameron Bobro)
2b and 2d some sort of well temperaments (Carl Lumma)
I'll take a stab and say that 'd' was WerckIII (Aaron Krister Johnson)
Example d is obviously the Werckmeister (Brad Lehman)
I agree that Werckmeister III is the fourth one (Ozan Yarman)
2d sounds very nice (Ozan Yarman)

! young.scl
!
Thomas Young well temperament (1807), also Luigi Malerbi nr.2 (1794)
12
!
256/243
196.09000
32/27
392.18000
4/3
1024/729
698.04500
128/81
894.13500
16/9
1090.22500
2/1

I was surprised at first how easy it was to confuse Young with 
Werckmeister, since the two are quite different. But looking at the 
Scala files, you can see that they actually share quite a few notes.

And for the bonus examples:

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2e.mp3> 
2e seems to exhibit severe problems in simple keys (Ozan Yarman)
Much as I hate to say it, I don't think 2e is the worst choice. (Gene 
Ward Smith)

(This is equal temperament.)

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2f.mp3> 
2f did not appeal to me very much as it sounds edgy (Ozan Yarman)

! kirnberger3.scl
!
Kirnberger 3: 1/4 synt. comma (1744)
12
!
135/128
193.15686
32/27
5/4
4/3
45/32
696.57843
405/256
889.73529
16/9
15/8
2/1

> http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3 <http://home.comcast.net/~teamouse/fugue2g.mp3> 
2g is psychedelic! but quite improper for Bach in my opinion. (Ozan Yarman)

! super_12.scl
!
Most equal superparticular 12-tone scale 

12
!
16/15
17/15
6/5
19/15
4/3
64/45
68/45
8/5
76/45
16/9
17/9
2/1

From: Tom Dent (2007-01-21)
Subject: Re: Another Bach tuning comparison

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> If 'd' is really 'WIII' (or even if it isn't!) then I don't think it
> comes off at all badly. Ab-C doesn't serve as a point of rest - but
> the way the piece is composed, it needn't.
> 
> However, 'b' has some chords in odd places that seem pretty harsh even
> in passing and I wouldn't go for it. Sure 'b' isn't old Werckie?
> 
> I'm astonished at the rhythmic regularity of the playing! I'd almost
> have thought it synthesized, except for the gradations in dynamic.
> 
> 'c' is pleasantly strange (must be properly-spelled meantone) sounding
> almost like a doo-wop group, not a keyboard at all; 'g' unpleasantly
> strange (badly-spelled meantone?).
> 
> ~~~T~~~


For once I'm feeling pretty smug ... only regret that I didn't have
the courage to contradict everyone else and say outright, 'd' is
smoother than 'b', therefore 'd' must be something-like-Young and 'b'
must be WIII. 

What made me wince in 'b' (though it took repeated listenings to pin
down) was the G minor passage near the middle of the piece: the glut
of 1/4-Pythagorean-comma flat fifths, plus impure thirds, must be the
problem. Young in G minor is considerably better. 

Thanks to Herman for listenable and interesting samples!

~~~T~~~