I think the idea is great...if it actually works in practice. Radical, yes, and I suppose there may be refinements (or maybe they've already worked them out) over time.
I've always been frustrated by guitars that 'sounded bad'. Every now and then a 'good' one would come along and I would notice. But I didn't know why...
Waaay back when, I remember attempting to tune a Farfisa organ, trying to correct the horribly sharp-beating M3 interval. Fixing it was the easy part, but then the gremlin of chasing the next worst interval was ever-present and ever-elusive. I gave up in frustration, thinking something was wrong with the instrument. That was looong before I ever learned about temperament, and all its iterations. Suddenly the light went on, everything has to be equally out of tune! And then I could hear temperament. Wow. But I've always heard it. And maybe why I love choral music (Dale Warland) so much, along with symphonic pieces. They are constantly tuning on the fly. Even the dissonances are perfectly tuned ('cept for the occasional clunker).
Anyway, I think the idea is correct, and I understand that it is necessary and why. Maybe they've trumped equal temperament with a better mousetrap.
(Message edited by lenny_d on September 28, 2009)
