Topic: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning
2 scales
| File | Description | Notes | Period (ยข) |
|---|---|---|---|
| J_P_Mander | John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning | 12 | 1200.0 |
| J_P_Mander_SC | John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning compiled by A.Sparschuh | 12 | 1200.0 |
Thread (5 messages)
From: Andreas Sparschuh (2009-02-26) Subject: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning according to John's Nov.2004 specifications, overtaken from http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=66&st=0&p=440&#entry440 it is actually ! J_P_Mander.scl ! John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning ! !C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# !Ab +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C ! 12 ! 78.0 ! C# 192. ! D 294. ! Eb 384. ! E 498. ! F 578. ! F# 696. ! G 775. ! G# 888. ! A 996. ! Bb 1080. ! B 2/1 ! Some samples http://www.baroquecds.com/21Web.html http://www.baroquecds.com/samples.html http://www.baroquecds.com/Adlington.html the organ http://www.adlingtonhall.com/ http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1074762/a/Organ+At+Adlington+Hall.htm Quest How would the neo-Baroque experts in that group here tune that old instrument for coeval G.F.Haendel recordings ? not to mention J.S.Bach ? bye A.S.
From: martinsj013 (2010-04-27) Subject: Re: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning A very brief excerpt of the the Aldington Hall organ was broadcast on the BBC on Saturday morning. The presenters commented that the tuning was not 12-tET, but no more detail. I looked it up on the web only to find that A.S. had covered it a year ago (see below). (Note however the PC fractions don't seem to add up - F#-C# is stated to be "-1/5" but it needs to be "-1/12" to add up - A.S. seems to have made this change for us.) Link to BBC programme (but NB it was a very short excerpt!): http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s4w8d Steve M. --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas Sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...> wrote: > > according to John's Nov.2004 specifications, > overtaken from > http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=66&st=0&p=440&#entry440 > it is actually > > ! J_P_Mander.scl > ! > John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning > ! > !C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# > !Ab +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C > ! > 12 > ! > 78.0 ! C# > 192. ! D > 294. ! Eb > 384. ! E > 498. ! F > 578. ! F# > 696. ! G > 775. ! G# > 888. ! A > 996. ! Bb > 1080. ! B > 2/1 > ! > > Some samples > http://www.baroquecds.com/21Web.html > http://www.baroquecds.com/samples.html > http://www.baroquecds.com/Adlington.html > > the organ > http://www.adlingtonhall.com/ > http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1074762/a/Organ+At+Adlington+Hall.htm > > Quest > How would the neo-Baroque experts in that group here > tune that old instrument for coeval G.F.Haendel recordings ? > not to mention J.S.Bach ? > > bye > A.S. >
From: a_sparschuh (2010-04-27) Subject: Re: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "martinsj013" <martinsj@...> wrote: > (Note however the PC fractions don't seem to add up > - F#-C# is stated to be "-1/5" but it needs to be "-1/12" to add up > > - A.S. seems to have made this change for us.) In deed Martin, at that time I thought, that little change as convenient, in order to get rid of the somewhat unclear specification on Mander's own web-site, : http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=66&st=0&p=440&#entry440 quote: " C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B ... ... B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C " Guess: Maybe here got the fractions of the SC and PC mixed or even confused? because SC^(13/12)=~PC or PC^(11/12)=~SC. bye A.S.
From: martinsj013 (2010-04-27) Subject: Re: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "a_sparschuh" <a_sparschuh@...> wrote: > quote: > " C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B ... > ... B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C " > Guess: > Maybe here got the fractions of the SC and PC mixed or even confused? > because SC^(13/12)=~PC or PC^(11/12)=~SC. Yes that makes sense - if he meant SC then two of the M3's are 5/4, and we can assume that the "+2/3" is an approximation.
From: a_sparschuh (2010-04-28) Subject: Correction of: Re: John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning (SC-variant) --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "martinsj013" <martinsj@...> wrote: > (Note however the PC fractions don't seem to add up - F#-C# is stated to be "-1/5" but it needs to be "-1/12" to add up - A.S. seems to have made this change for us.) > > > http://www.mander-organs.com/discussion/index.php?showtopic=66&st=0&p=440&#entry440 > > ! J_P_Mander.scl > > ! > > John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning > > ! > > !C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# > > !Ab +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C > > ! > > 12 > > ! > > 78.0 ! C# > > 192. ! D > > 294. ! Eb > > 384. ! E > > 498. ! F > > 578. ! F# > > 696. ! G > > 775. ! G# > > 888. ! A > > 996. ! Bb > > 1080. ! B > > 2/1 > > ! Hi Martin, but a closer look into J.P.Mander's specification on his web-site allows to deduce clearly, that Mander intends to divide the SC instead of the the PC, as once I had supposed wrongly. Hence here comes the corresponding subdivision of the SC=81/80. The reanalysis yields now: !J_P_Mander_SC.scl ! John Pike Mander's Adlington-Hall organ tuning compiled by A.Sparschuh ! ! C -1/4 G -1/4 D -1/4 A -1/4 E -1/4 B -1/6 F# -1/5 C# -1/6 G# ... ! ... Ab +2/3 Eb 0 Bb 0 F 0 C as all in fractions of the SC=81/81 ! 12 ! 78.9165045 ! C# ! (135/128) / (81/80)^(-1/4 -1/6 -1/5) >~chroma 25/24 193.156857 ! D ! (9/8) / (81/80)^(1/2) standard meantonic whole-tone 32/27 ! Eb ! Pythagorean minor-3rd from pure 5ths Eb-Bb-F-C 5/4 ! E ! just-major-3rd as in meantonics 4/3 ! F ! just-4th: C-F 581.262762 ! F# ! (45/32) * (81/80)^(-1/4 -1/6) tritone 696.578428 ! G ! (3/2) * (81/80)^(-1/4) ordinary meantonic-5th 777.842470 ! Ab ! (128/81) / (81/80)^(+2/3) minor-6th !777.28712 ! G# ! (405/256) * (81/80)^(-1/4 -1/6 -1/5 -1/6) 889.735285 ! A ! (5/3) * (81/80)^(1/4) ordinary meantonic-6th 16/9 ! Bb ! just diminished-7th due to pure 5ths: Bb-F-C 1082.89214 ! B ! (15/8) / (81/80)^(1/4) ordinary meantonic-7th 2/1 ! ! Attend the tiny 'enharmonic' difference inbetween Ab - G# of about ! 777.842470 - 777.28712 = ~ +0.555346...Cents only. ! ![eof] Now that corrected version makes i.m.h.o. more sense than the obsolete PC-variant with an enharmonic-difference of about more than an schisma. bye A.S.