Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup harmonic_entropy new listening session

I did a new listening session with the new Tenney orderings on the
Tuning Lab.

After this session, I have concluded that things are MORE COMPLEX
than I had initially supposed. In some cases, the geometric mean
otonal listings seemed to reflect what I was hearing, *BUT*,
surprising to me, in OTHER instances the TENNEY listing seemed to do
a better job!

In a few cases, *neither* ranked the tetrads as being as concordant
as I thought they should be. However, these instances, where
*neither* listing gave an approximate concordance were, frankly,
rare.

Here are the results. My method was simple... I was mostly just
looking for tetrads that seemed *more* concordant than the given
Tenney listing...

12-11-00

I did another listening session of the new Tenney rankings. I
realize now that things are a little more "complicated" than I
originally supposed. While the otonal "geometric mean" rankings
seemed better for some tetrads, the Tenney actually seemed better for
others, so adhering to the "geometric mean" rankings exclusively
seemed *NOT* the best policy.

I decided just to go with the audible sound and I tried to limit
any "preconceptions" I had about any of the chords. This was easy to
do :).

My major concern was tetrads that seemed more *concordant* than they
should be in the new Tenney rankings.

First off I have a retraction. The "stacked fourths" chord
0__492__980__1472 really does sound incredibly concordant. The #2
ranking on the new Tenney listing really is *MUCH* better than the
previous #33 ranking on the geometric mean. I wonder how it got that
low using that method (??) Indeed, the tetrad sounds exceedingly
concordant. The geometric mean ranking seems, for some reason,
*wrong* on this one! This was a surprise!

I thought tetrad #6-7: 0__502__1002__1390 should be more concordant
than #6-7. However, it was ranked #10 on the geometric mean, so
*neither* list seemed to make it as concordant as I wanted it to be!

Tetrad #8-9: 0__388__702__970 should be near the most concordant in
my listening experience. It is way down to #30 on the geo listing.
Weird (??) I thought it sounded very concordant.

Tetrad #11-12: 0__498__702__886 should be ranked a *bit* more
concordant. It was #22 on the geo, so that list didn't represent it
as well, to my ear.

Tetrad #15-16: 0__302__502__1004 seemed like it should be ranked a
*bit* more concordant. This one is #31 geo, so that ranking also
didn't rank this one as well.

Tetrad #17-18: 0__204__702__1088 should be ranked as more
concordant. It is #20 geo, so neither list has it as concordant as I
feel it should be.

Tetrad #20-21: 0__318__816__1020 should be ranked *MUCH* more
consonant than this. (It's the 5:6:7:8). The geo list was *MUCH*
better with this one it was #2 geo.

Tetrad #27-28: 0__502__1002__1320 should be ranked more concordant.
It's exactly the same on the geo list, #28, so *neither* is so
satisfactory to me

Tetrad #31-32: 0__388__776__1090 should be ranked more concordant.
It's #17 geo, so that list did a better job, to my ear.

Tetrad #33: 0__388__886__274 should be ranked more concordant. It's
#13 geo, so the geo list did a better job on that one.

These are the new results... now *why??*
__________ ___ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

>After this session, I have concluded that things are MORE COMPLEX
>than I had initially supposed. In some cases, the geometric mean
>otonal listings seemed to reflect what I was hearing, *BUT*,
>surprising to me, in OTHER instances the TENNEY listing seemed to do
>a better job!

Let's clarify the essential distinction by referring to these rankings as
TETRADIC and DYADIC, respectively.

>First off... I have a retraction. The "stacked fourths" chord
>0__492__980__1472 really does sound incredibly concordant. The #2
>ranking on the new Tenney listing really is *MUCH* better than the
>previous #33 ranking on the geometric mean. I wonder how it got that
>low using that method (??) Indeed, the tetrad sounds exceedingly
>concordant. The geometric mean ranking seems, for some reason,
>*wrong* on this one! This was a surprise!

I'm surprised you forgot, Joseph . . . this chord didn't even _have_ a
geometric mean at all, because it's an essentially tempered chord, not
expressible in JI!

>I thought tetrad #6-7: 0__502__1002__1390 should be more concordant
>than #6-7. However, it was ranked #10 on the geometric mean, so
>*neither* list seemed to make it as concordant as I wanted it to be!

What may be going on here is that we have a DYADIC ranking and a (rather
simmplistic) TETRADIC ranking, but no TRIADIC ranking -- and here the nice
3:4:5 TRIAD on top might be the key . . .

>Tetrad #8-9: 0__388__702__970 should be near the most concordant in
>my listening experience. It is way down to #30 on the geo listing.
>Weird (??) I thought it sounded very concordant.

You must be reading the list wrong -- it's #1, not #30!

Before I go on, can you try to figure out how you made this error, in case
it might be affecting your other judgments?

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@...>

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/harmonic_entropy/307

>
> Let's clarify the essential distinction by referring to these
rankings as TETRADIC and DYADIC, respectively.
>

Fine, I will do this. It seems as though you feel this is the reason
for the "better" approximations of the tetradic geometric mean
method... for, in fact, that I what I came up with.

I'm very sorry about the previous post. I got my "charts" mixed up,
and read the numbers wrong! It has *nothing* to do with the
listening, though....

However, with the new comparisions, the tetradic geometric mean list
really *DOES* seem to do a better job at evaluating things than the
new Tenney DIADIC listing...

> >First off... I have a retraction. The "stacked fourths" chord
> >0__492__980__1472 really does sound incredibly concordant. The #2
> >ranking on the new Tenney listing really is *MUCH* better than the
> >previous #33 ranking on the geometric mean. I wonder how it got
that low using that method (??) Indeed, the tetrad sounds
exceedingly
> >concordant. The geometric mean ranking seems, for some reason,
> >*wrong* on this one! This was a surprise!
>

> I'm surprised you forgot, Joseph . . . this chord didn't even
_have_ a geometric mean at all, because it's an essentially tempered
chord, not expressible in JI!
>

Actually, this was a misconception on my part. I thought that the
non-JI chords were considered "less concordant" because they didn't
have an otonal geometric mean... They were at the "bottom" of the
chart. I can see now, though, that that just meant they were not
evaluated AT ALL. I actually didn't understand that thoroughly...
Obviously, we can't compare that method for these chords, then.

> >I thought tetrad #6-7: 0__502__1002__1390 should be more
concordant than #6-7. However, it was ranked #10 on the geometric
mean, so *neither* list seemed to make it as concordant as I wanted
it
to be!
>

> What may be going on here is that we have a DYADIC ranking and a
(rather simmplistic) TETRADIC ranking, but no TRIADIC ranking -- and
here the nice 3:4:5 TRIAD on top might be the key . . .
>

OK... That would make sense for this one... I guess what you're
saying is that when you have the actual mathematical model for a
*CORRECT* sophisticated tetradic method, the evaluations will become
more accurate...

Sorry about the rest of this... I got my charts confused.

I will post the "corrected" evaluation again...

_________ ___ __ _
Joseph

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@...>

>> Let's clarify the essential distinction by referring to these
>>rankings as TETRADIC and DYADIC, respectively.

>Fine, I will do this. It seems as though you feel this is the reason
>for the "better" approximations of the tetradic geometric mean
>method...

Not really -- each method captures a different component of total
discordance.

>for, in fact, that I what I came up with.

Fadda wadda wha?

>However, with the new comparisions, the tetradic geometric mean list
>really *DOES* seem to do a better job at evaluating things than the
>new Tenney DIADIC listing...

Again, they are meant to _each_ get at a _component_ of the overall effect .
. . but it does seem that the new DYADIC ranking satisfies you better than
any of the old DYADIC ranking, if you can mentally take otonal synergy out
of the picture, yes?

>Actually, this was a misconception on my part. I thought that the
>non-JI chords were considered "less concordant" because they didn't
>have an otonal geometric mean... They were at the "bottom" of the
>chart. I can see now, though, that that just meant they were not
>evaluated AT ALL. I actually didn't understand that thoroughly...
>Obviously, we can't compare that method for these chords, then.

True, though putting them on the bottom was appropriate, because if we did
come up with a set of otonal numbers for these chords that approximated them
as well as the other chords on the list were approximated by _their_ otonal
numbers, the numbers would have to be very large.

>OK... That would make sense for this one... I guess what you're
>saying is that when you have the actual mathematical model for a
>*CORRECT* sophisticated tetradic method, the evaluations will become
>more accurate...

Well, the TETRADIC model will be more sophisticated, but we will still have
components of concordance coming from DYADIC and TRIADIC considerations . .
. for example, the stacked-fourths chord, and its two reductions to within
one octave (0__302__502__1004 and 0__502__702__1004) will still look poor on
a TETRADIC basis, but are clearly rather concordant owing mainly to the
preponderance of concordant DYADS . . . what seems rather impossible to
decide on purely theoretical grounds is how to ultimately combine the
DYADIC, TRIADIC, and TETRADIC ratings into a single model for tetrads . . .
perhaps only trial and error combined with careful listening will be able to
lead the way there.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@...>

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/harmonic_entropy/310

> . . but it does seem that the new DYADIC ranking satisfies you
better than any of the old DYADIC ranking, if you can mentally take
otonal synergy out of the picture, yes?

It did seem, on the overall, that the new dyadic ordering was more
acceptable.... with a few cited "exceptions." I remember having
significant problems with the first Farey diadic ordering.

This seems not as "severely" off, but, still, it doesn't rank
concordance anywhere nearly as effectively, to my ear, as the
tetradic geometric mean method... (once I got my charts right!)

__________ ___ __ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗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/310

>
> >Actually, this was a misconception on my part. I thought that the
> >non-JI chords were considered "less concordant" because they
didn't have an otonal geometric mean... They were at the "bottom" of
the chart. I can see now, though, that that just meant they were not
> >evaluated AT ALL. I actually didn't understand that thoroughly...

> >Obviously, we can't compare that method for these chords, then.
>
> True, though putting them on the bottom was appropriate, because if
we did come up with a set of otonal numbers for these chords that
approximated them as well as the other chords on the list were
approximated by _their_ otonal numbers, the numbers would have to be
very large.
>

So the "stacked fourths" chord 0__492__980__1472 really moves quite
far from the tetradic geometric mean ranking in the new diadic
Tenney. It's #2, now, and, before, it was "off the JI charts" at the
very bottom... So, at least that much is a better description, so it
seems...

________ ___ __
Joseph