Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup harmonic

Paul and Joseph,

Here's the way my ear thinks these triads should be ordered, from most to least
consonant. My basic question for the ranking of each chord was, "Would I want to
hear a piece of tonal music end on this chord?" I'm sure that focus influenced my
ratings, as did my dislike for beating harmonies, no doubt.

If I understand Paul correctly, his ordering was not meant to show how the current
state of harmonic entropy theory would rate these according to sensory consonance,
and the purpose of making the files was not to have others offer their own ordering
by sensory consonance. Nevertheless, I don't know how else to go about demonstrating
my response to a list of tetrads in the context of harmonic entropy. Whatever the
purpose was, it surely is helpful to be able to listen to the numbers! Thank you
both very much.

TL My
order | order | Intrvls cents | Name (mostly Paul's, some mine)

22-23 1 388 702 970 Just 7-limit M-m7th
20-21 2 204 702 1020 2nd inv. just minor over its subdominant
5 3 498 886 1384 Open-voiced just m7 (9:12:15:20)
7-8 4 498 702 886 2nd inv. just major add 9
1 5 386 702 1088 Just M7th
3-4 6 388 702 886 Just major add 6th
3-4 7 184 498 886 2nd Inv. just major add 6
2 8 316 702 1018 Just m7
9-10 9 386 884 1088 2nd inv. just major over its subdominant
25-26 10 202 702 974 8:9:12:14
14-15 11 186 576 888 Tempered M-m7
16-17 12 388 888 1390 Jazz add6-add9
16-17 13 502 1002 1390 Tempered Carol King chord
24 14 388 886 1274 5-limit augmented octave tetrad
20-21 15 318 816 1020 1st inv. just major add9
22-23 16 268 582 970 Just half dim. (Utonal version of just 7-limit M-m7th)
6 17 268 702 970 7-limit just m7
9-10 18 204 702 1088 1st inv. just minor add 9
11-12 19 502 702 1004 Octave reduced quartal 1-4-5-m7
13 20 492 980 1472 Quartal tempered to approximate 7-limit
11-12 21 302 502 1004 Octave reduced quartal 1-m3-4-m7
18-19 22 384 588 1086 M7(dim5)
27-28 23 314 702 1090 Just m-M7
18-19 24 498 702 1086 Open M-m7 over its subdominant
29 25 500 816 1316 Open-voiced third inversion M7
14-15 26 312 702 888 Just minor add 6
32-33 27 318 818 1320 1st inv. M-add4
34-35 28 500 886 1320 Major-add(aug5) or 4th inv. Aug M7
32-33 29 502 1002 1320 Minor Carol King
30-31 30 498 888 1282 Tempered augmented octave tetrad 2
25-26 31 272 772 974 36:42:56:63
27-28 32 388 776 1090 Just M7(aug5)
7-8 33 184 388 886 1st inv. just major over its subdominant
30-31 34 394 784 1282 Tempered augmented octave tetrad 1
36 35 442 884 1326 Stack of (3) 442c intervals
34-35 36 434 820 1320 Aug add-m9

I've got to say, I was introduced to some wonderful "new" sounds by this experiment.
There are some fabulously beautiful chords down in the upper 20s and lower 30s (my
order)! The reason I ranked them "low" is because they have a lot of emotional
tension.

I have a feeling that my lower 10 or so could easily change order if a somewhat
different (but still harmonic) timbre were used, or even if I listened to them in a
different order, though I did quite a bit of back-and-forth comparisons up and down
the list. I expect that my top 10-20 would stay mostly in place.

You can thank Apple for my opportunity to do this so soon. While I have been working
12-15 hrs/day, seven days/week for the last two weeks right up through yesterday, the
"trusty" Mac 8100 at my work crashed often enough that I had the chance to listen to
and rate a few chords at a time on the (cable modem connected, 750 MHz) Windows
machine while the Mac rebooted. And I get paid for this? ;-)

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗David Finnamore <daeron@...>

--- In harmonic_entropy@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> It looks, though, like you scrambled a lot of the descriptions

Oops.

, for example
> this one is incorrect:
>
> > 386 884 1088 2nd inv. just major over its subdominant

Should have checked my work more carefully! It was a mistake to
assume that the first description in each pair applied to the first
tetrad in that pair. It ain't necessarily so. That shouldn't affect
the html page I built for it, since the pairs still go together.

> Could this have impacted your ordering?

Fortunately, no. I did the experiment as blindly as possible. My
choices were noted on paper by writing down only the Lab order
number, adding "A" and "B" to the tied pairs, according to which was
listed first on the Lab page. I didn't even read the descriptions
until after I had given my "final answer." I also went back through
them by my order earlier today, making sure that each sounded at
least as dissonant as the previous one.

Note to self: sleep first, post later. :-)

-David

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@...>

--- In harmonic_entropy@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/harmonic_entropy/301

> Joseph, it appears that some of my comments from the initial,
> open-voicing-biased, Farey-based rankings are still present on the
Web page, even though the ranking has been updated to use the
exponential of the unbiased, Tenney-based rankings. For example, the
entire parenthetical comment under Tetrad #22-23 could be excised . .
.

Sorry, Paul... I got a bit behind on my Harmonic Entropy
contributions... [it got busy at work and, well, blah, blah..]

So, I have updated the Tuning Lab webpage at:

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/140/tuning_lab.html

The ordering now reflects the new "unbiased" Tenney 6*pi
exponential ranking was posted mid November...

I also took out the bit about the quartal 22-tET chords being in the
wrong place, etc....

Is there anything still incorrect about the page, Paul??

Actually, I still like the MP3.com Tuning Lab page. I think it's
great that it's on as commercial a service as mp3.com, since maybe
somebody with half a brain will land on it by "mistake" and learn
something from it... It's true that maybe "streaming" isn't the best
method, but, in HI-FI mode it really isn't all that bad. One still
can get a sense of the concordance, I believe...

I've been comparing the new Tenney ordering to the "geometric mean"
ordering which, as you know, is my "bible" (probably rather
foolishly, but I *did* like the sound of that ordering...)

Some things, of course, as you yourself mentioned, come out more
reasonably... like the 4:5:6:7 being now ranked #8-9. I feel much
better about that... Regarding your OWN 22-tET stacked fourths,
0___492___980___1472... I was wondering how it ever managed to jump
up to #2 slot... since it was 'way down the line on the geometric
mean ranking. True, it was closer to the "top" on the original
diadic
sum rankings...

Still, there are some notable deviations from the geometric mean
ranking, that STILL stay quite distinct from it. 0__318__816__1020
is still at 20-21 on the new 6*pi ranking, where it is number 2 on
the geometric mean...

Likewise, 0__202__702__974 is now at #25-26, whereas it is #4 on the
geometric mean. Since the geometric mean seemed to be my "favorite,"
it is hard for me (yet) to agree with the new ordering...

My first impression is that the new ordering really just "mixes up"
some of the things... with some chords that were originally ranked
less concordant (like the 4:5:6:7) than they should be moving into
more "appropriate" slots, BUT OTHERS, that were ranked less concordant
(like the stacked fourths) as maybe they should be now becoming
suddenly maybe erroneously concordant!

Please let me know if there is any more work to be done on the Tuning
Lab page with reference to the new Tenney ordering!

Thanks!

Joseph

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@...>

--- In harmonic_entropy@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/harmonic_entropy/303

> --- In harmonic_entropy@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson"
> <josephpehrson@c...> wrote:
>
> > The ordering now reflects the new "unbiased" Tenney 6*pi
> > exponential ranking was posted mid November...
>
> Hmm . . . that might have been a bold step . . .
> >

Do you think that was a bit "preliminary??" Anyway, it's DONE (!!)

> > I also took out the bit about the quartal 22-tET chords being in
> the wrong place, etc....
>
> wrong place . . . remind me what that was about? Also, regarding
this chord . . . you mentioned it several times in your post, but
you
> didn't indicate how _you_ think it should be ranked based on how it
> sounds to _you_.

I believe you thought the 22-tET chord should have been considered
more concordant than reflected in the first diadic entropy ranking...
I deleted the text now... but I may have a copy somewhere...

Good point about the LISTENING, though. When I get a chance, I am
going to listen to the ENTIRE set of new rankings and, hopefully,
have a couple of comments...

_______ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗David J. Finnamore <daeron@...>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

David Finnamore wrote,

>But remember also that you're listening on a computer. Quiet tones may
beat
>against the drone of the computer fan(s), possibly a spinning CD-ROM if one
is
>in the drive, maybe even the hard disk. Make it loud enough to minimize
those
>accidental effects.

Hmm, I haven't noticed any extraneous sounds coming from my computer, but it
would certainly be a good idea to at least make sure that the CD-ROM and
hard drive are not in operation while doing this.

>Would headphones be a good idea?

Yes, although it would be really important to use as low a level as
possible, and note that Daniel Wolf had quite different results in
identifying JI chords depending on whether he was listening with headphones
or not -- maybe being able to rotate your head in the sound field is somehow
important.