GSM Cambridge and stretch tuning

[Bill Hibbert]

RO:
> When Taylors recast the trebles and restored [GSM] in 1952 they made 
them one of their horrible 'stretched' peals

In the debate about stretch tuning, there are no right answers, only 
different wrong ones and the need for compromise! GSM is one of the 
peals that I investigated in my PhD (page 219, for anyone who has 
downloaded a copy) and in fact the treble tuning is close to that 
needed to compensate exactly for the flattening of the strike note due 
to the treble profiles. This is pretty remarkable given that Paul 
Taylor (I assume it was he) had no theoretical understanding of the 
need for stretch, only the evidence of his ears.

Richard, you are listening to these bells as a bellfounder, not as a 
man-in-the-street. Of course the nominals are sharp - but the strike 
notes are flat. Stretch tuning is no longer fashionable, due to the 
discordance of various partials in true-harmonic peals heard in the 
tower. It was certainly taken to extreme in peals like GSM. However, 
the insistence on exact tuning of nominals, because they are easy to 
measure, means the rest of us have to suffer flat / dull trebles in 
higher numbers. Because it is so hard to measure what we hear, the 
argument is lost as soon as the tuning forks come out. That doesn't 
mean that what we hear isn't real!

The two sides of the argument are neatly summarised by two comments on 
a Youtube video of the New York 12 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?
v=0w6SQdrFSUg)
> is the top bell out of tune?
> no it isn't 

Cheers,

Bill H

PS insert smilies to taste.