Talk:Werckmeister temperament

Werckmeister - sources...

Hi - Where did you get the numerical values for the Werckmeister tunings? Unfortunately they are falsely reported in many 20th century sources which were written by people who did not respect the original text or could not interpret it. Particularly the 'IV' or 'septenarius' tunings which have, in fact, nothing at all to do with 1/7 fractions of a comma. What Werckmeister actually said was that the septenarius could be tuned without thinking about divisions of a comma, instead he used exact integer ratios! So any values based on fractions of a comma are total misrepresentations.

I would recommend to obtain a copy of the original text of 1691 and check carefully to see how historically accurate your sources are. Otherwise you run the risk of passing on a false text.

Also, what is the point of giving the cent values to 3 decimal places? No instrument, let alone an organ, could ever be tuned to such precision!!

Best, --Tdent 21:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My main source is [1], which appears to be a scanned copy of "Wilhelm Dupont: Geschichte der musikalischen Temperatur". If you find errors, feel free to correct them! You are right about the cent values. I will remove the decimals. Apus 09:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbering system

Most (all?) sources appear to call the first temperament discussed Werckmeister III rather than Werckmeister I. Referring to the third system Werckmeister wrote about as "Werckmeister I" is at worst original research and at best confusing and unsupported by convention. --Atemperman (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now the page uses two numbering systems for the Werckmeister temperaments: the standard one and a new one apparently made up by some author of this page. I think this is confusing. E.g. right now Werckmeister III is called "Werckmeister I (III)". I fail to see how this helps readers. Let's get rid of this and use the standard numbering only. John Baez (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Typo?

The E value for the W I which is |${\frac {256}{243}}{\sqrt[{4}]{2}}$ ||392 | seems to be at least inaccurate since the cent formula would suggest 390. One could argue that 2 cents are not audible, but all the other numbers in the W I and W II tables are correct to 1 cent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.93.180 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree 390 is consistent with the ratio given. The value was unexplainedly changed twice [2][3]. I have changed it back to 390. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)