interval as pitch space, not frequency

A leading Psychoacoustician wrote

"I had a look at "Harmonic Entropy" and was immediately put off by the
idea that intervals are frequency ratios (which ratio? most intervals
have two...) and Euler's idea of harmony, that in my view has no
physiological basis"

Most definitions of consonance do not require exact integer tunings,
only approximations.

-Kelly

At 08:51 AM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>A leading Psychoacoustician wrote
>
>"I had a look at "Harmonic Entropy" and was immediately put off by the
>idea that intervals are frequency ratios (which ratio? most intervals
>have two...) and Euler's idea of harmony, that in my view has no
>physiological basis"
>
>Most definitions of consonance do not require exact integer tunings,
>only approximations.
>
>-Kelly

Hi Kelly,

Who said this? It doesn't seem like they understand harmonic
entropy very well.

-Carl

Believe me, a top source. I belive it's based, partly, on the work of Bloomslitter and Creel. All you have to do is look at the main papers in psychoacoustics to see that the exact tuning of the interval doesn't matter for phenom. such as tonal fusion.

To: harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.comFrom: carl@...: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:59:27 -0800Subject: Re: [harmonic_entropy] interval as pitch space, not frequency

At 08:51 AM 12/29/2007, you wrote:>A leading Psychoacoustician wrote >>"I had a look at "Harmonic Entropy" and was immediately put off by the >idea that intervals are frequency ratios (which ratio? most intervals >have two...) and Euler's idea of harmony, that in my view has no >physiological basis">>Most definitions of consonance do not require exact integer tunings, >only approximations. >>-KellyHi Kelly,Who said this? It doesn't seem like they understand harmonicentropy very well.-Carl

_________________________________________________________________
Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!
http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_wlhmtextlink1_dec

At 12:56 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>Believe me, a top source. I belive it's based, partly, on the work of Bloomslitter and Creel.

What is based on Boomlitter & Creel?

>All you have to do is look at the main papers in psychoacoustics to see that the exact tuning of the interval doesn't matter for phenom. such as tonal fusion.

I'm not familiar with such papers. Can you cite some examples?

-Carl

hi Carl. One reference to this issue occurs in Richard Parncutt's
important 1988 "Revision of Terhardt's Psychoacoustical Model of the
Root(s) of a musical chord." On p. 70, he discusses Terhtards use of
subharmonics for a chord root model, and on the 'mistuning' of the
natural 7th harmonic, he writes that 'this does not effect the model,
as mistunings by up to half a semitone may still be perceived as
belonging to the tone [citations...]...and variations in tuning may
occur in performance of diatonic music [citations..]without effecting
the musics perceived tonal structure. Such varaitions are esay to
eplain if musical intervals are regarded as no more that pitch
distances (as in Terhards model) rather than as frequency ratios (eg,
as in the theory of Boomsliter and Creel, 1961.)"

I don't know the current status of this debate, but have often seen
it stated in the psychacoust lit. that tonal fusion in a complex tone
works within a range of 'mistuings'...

-Kelly

he writes " --- In harmonic_entropy@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma
<carl@...> wrote:
>
> At 12:56 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
> >Believe me, a top source. I belive it's based, partly, on the
work of Bloomslitter and Creel.
>
> What is based on Boomlitter & Creel?
>
> >All you have to do is look at the main papers in psychoacoustics
to see that the exact tuning of the interval doesn't matter for
phenom. such as tonal fusion.
>
> I'm not familiar with such papers. Can you cite some examples?
>
> -Carl
>

Hi Kelly-

>hi Carl. One reference to this issue occurs in Richard Parncutt's
>important 1988 "Revision of Terhardt's Psychoacoustical Model of the
>Root(s) of a musical chord." On p. 70, he discusses Terhtards use of
>subharmonics for a chord root model, and on the 'mistuning' of the
>natural 7th harmonic, he writes that 'this does not effect the model,
>as mistunings by up to half a semitone may still be perceived as
>belonging to the tone [citations...]

There's nothing I can see here against harmonic entropy.

>...and variations in tuning may occur in performance of diatonic
>music [citations..] without effecting the musics perceived tonal
>structure.

"Tonal structure" sounds to me like it almost could be referring
to functional harmony, which is outside of the scope of harmonic
entropy or any model of psychoacoustic dissonance.

>I don't know the current status of this debate, but have often seen
>it stated in the psychacoust lit. that tonal fusion in a complex tone
>works within a range of 'mistuings'...

"Tonal fusion" is a loaded term, isn't it? One would have to
know what it means to comment.

-Carl

traktus5 wrote:

> I don't know the current status of this debate, but have often seen
> it stated in the psychacoust lit. that tonal fusion in a complex tone
> works within a range of 'mistuings'...

We all know that certain properties hold for mistunings. That's the whole point of temperament. What you said is that the precise tuning doesn't matter. That's a very different assertion and one you haven't backed up.

Graham