Korg OASYS

In response to a suggestion to increase the per-note tuning range
beyond +- 99 cents, Dan Philips at Korg posted:

"Good point. I'll add this as a feature request.

Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance.

- Dan"

The latter might be a reference to Paul Erlich's tuning trick for the
Karma, from what I recall.

no partch 48 pitch per octave scales. a 43 just

paolovalladolid wrote:

>In response to a suggestion to increase the per-note tuning range
>beyond +- 99 cents, Dan Philips at Korg posted:
>
>"Good point. I'll add this as a feature request.
>
>Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
>to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
>Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance.
>
>- Dan"
>
>The latter might be a reference to Paul Erlich's tuning trick for the
>Karma, from what I recall.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Paolo,

{you wrote...}
>Dan Philips at Korg posted:
>"Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
>to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
>Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance."

I hope it is clear that this *isn't* correct, and most importantly not in terms of the number of notes per octave. The problem is that this spaces notes equally, which is completely wrong not only for Partch's tuning system, but many others, specifically JI-type tunings.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> Paolo,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Dan Philips at Korg posted:
> >"Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
> >to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
> >Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance."
>
> I hope it is clear that this *isn't* correct, and most importantly
not in
> terms of the number of notes per octave. The problem is that this
spaces
> notes equally, which is completely wrong not only for Partch's tuning
> system, but many others, specifically JI-type tunings.

That's what I figured, Jon. We'll see if and when the request to
increase the per-note tuning range gets implemented.

Paolo

I didn't expect Dan to be an expert in microtonal music. ;)

Anyway, I think its a good sign he didn't just say to shut up and be
happy with Pitch Slope, and that he would actually submit a feature
request.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> no partch 48 pitch per octave scales. a 43 just
>
> paolovalladolid wrote:
>
> >In response to a suggestion to increase the per-note tuning range
> >beyond +- 99 cents, Dan Philips at Korg posted:
> >
> >"Good point. I'll add this as a feature request.
> >
> >Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
> >to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
> >Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance.
> >
> >- Dan"
> >
> >The latter might be a reference to Paul Erlich's tuning trick for the
> >Karma, from what I recall.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

This seems to be the problem with all Korg "full keyboard" scales: +/- 99
cents still doesn't give >12 notes per octave. But is the Korg rep
suggesting that you adjust the pitch slope to derive the notes per octave,
then use the full keyboard scale in conjunction to get just tuning? Sounds
like a PITA, but could be a workaround.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jon Szanto
> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 3:19 PM
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Korg OASYS
>
> Paolo,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >Dan Philips at Korg posted:
> >"Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
> >to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
> >Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance."
>
> I hope it is clear that this *isn't* correct, and most importantly not in
> terms of the number of notes per octave. The problem is that this spaces
> notes equally, which is completely wrong not only for Partch's tuning
> system, but many others, specifically JI-type tunings.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "paolovalladolid" <phv40@h...>
wrote:
> In response to a suggestion to increase the per-note tuning range
> beyond +- 99 cents, Dan Philips at Korg posted:
>
> "Good point. I'll add this as a feature request.
>
> Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch Slope
> to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for Harry
> Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance.
>
> - Dan"
>
> The latter might be a reference to Paul Erlich's tuning trick for the
> Karma, from what I recall.

Right -- but the pitch slope parameter there has only 1 digit after the
decimal place, so you can't use 0.25. A parameter of 1.4 almost gives
you 7-equal, but not quite. It would be nice to be able to specify a
lot more digits for this.

I was able to implement 22-equal, with the keyboard's Es unused and an
acoustical octave being mapped to 2 keyboard octaves, on the Karma by
using a pitch slope parameter of 0.5 combined with an appropriate set
of offsets for each note. However, I couldn't find a way to implement
31-equal.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "paolovalladolid" <phv40@h...>
wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@c...>
wrote:
> > Paolo,
> >
> > {you wrote...}
> > >Dan Philips at Korg posted:
> > >"Note, however, that you can use this in combination with Pitch
Slope
> > >to achieve more pitches per octave - cut pitch slope to 0.25 for
Harry
> > >Partch-style 48-note-per-octave scales, for instance."
> >
> > I hope it is clear that this *isn't* correct, and most importantly
> not in
> > terms of the number of notes per octave. The problem is that this
> spaces
> > notes equally, which is completely wrong not only for Partch's
tuning
> > system, but many others, specifically JI-type tunings.
>
> That's what I figured, Jon. We'll see if and when the request to
> increase the per-note tuning range gets implemented.
>
> Paolo

You should also request more user full-keyboard tunings. Most of the
Korg tunings only allow you to specify 12 offsets for the 12 notes
(though the result may be different than 12 notes per octave if you
use the pitch slope feature). Also, if you don't mind, request some
more digits of resolution for the pitch slope, right now you can't
even do 0.25 on the Karma, it's either 0.2 or 0.3, nothing in-between.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...>
wrote:
> This seems to be the problem with all Korg "full keyboard" scales:
>+/- 99
> cents still doesn't give >12 notes per octave. But is the Korg rep
> suggesting that you adjust the pitch slope to derive the notes per
>octave,
> then use the full keyboard scale in conjunction to get just tuning?

Perhaps, and thus some members of this list may have come down
unfairly on him. Thanks, John.

> Sounds
> like a PITA,

?

> but could be a workaround.

Yeah, it's a "workaround" that works for some tunings, as I've
mentioned, but not for others, at least with the current limits on
ranges and resolution of the pitch parameters.

> John Loffink
> The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
> http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
> The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
> http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> You should also request more user full-keyboard tunings. Most of the
> Korg tunings only allow you to specify 12 offsets for the 12 notes
> (though the result may be different than 12 notes per octave if you
> use the pitch slope feature). Also, if you don't mind, request some
> more digits of resolution for the pitch slope, right now you can't
> even do 0.25 on the Karma, it's either 0.2 or 0.3, nothing in-between.

I should clarify the brief exchange with Dan Phillips, Korg R&D
Product Manager, took place on Harmony Central's KS&S web forum, which
I happened to come across while Web surfing. Here is a link to it:

http://tinyurl.com/7pjxr (Scroll down to post by "danatkorg")

So I can't really claim a direct line to Dan or anything like that.
The best one can do is post to that forum and hope Dan sees it. As
Paul alluded to in another post, I would advise you be polite and
focus specifically on the features you want. I don't think telling
him how ignorant he is about Partch and posts of that nature would be
productive at this time. ;)

Paolo

Paolo,

{you wrote...}
>I don't think telling him how ignorant he is about Partch and posts of >that nature would be productive at this time. ;)

I feel badly if somehow the way I responded to your original post made it seem like I was condescending or rude. I know that I was writing to 'our' audience, people who already know those minute but important differences in tuning accuracy, and I would never be anything but polite and sensitive when I would write to them. I have collaborated with 3 vendors of software instruments in this manner, and I can assure you that things were explained patiently to them and with firm knowledge of the fact that this is a very arcane area, and one can't expect others to know the small - albeit important - details.

I had seen a couple posts that made me feel like my original response, vis a vis a Partch tuning, had been in poor form, and I just wanted to assure anyone reading that there was no slight intended.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon,

I didn't think your post was rude at all. Hence the winking smiley. I
was just thinking about the "fanboy" type, rude posts directed at Mr
Phillips on the Harmony Central forum.

I've always figured you would be more in the camp of potential
customers working with company reps such as Mr. Phillips over making
sure they "get proper education". Get the guy on your side, first and
foremost. It'll be a while before I have enough pennies saved up
myself, but as I get closer to the target, I'll probably start posting
to the KARMA forums asking for updates about the tuning functions.
Stephen Kay (the KARMA man) seems like the most active Korg rep.

Paolo

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Jon Szanto <jszanto@c...> wrote:
>
> Paolo,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I don't think telling him how ignorant he is about Partch and posts of
> >that nature would be productive at this time. ;)
>
> I feel badly if somehow the way I responded to your original post
made it
> seem like I was condescending or rude. I know that I was writing to
'our'
> audience, people who already know those minute but important
differences in
> tuning accuracy, and I would never be anything but polite and sensitive
> when I would write to them. I have collaborated with 3 vendors of
software
> instruments in this manner, and I can assure you that things were
explained
> patiently to them and with firm knowledge of the fact that this is a
very
> arcane area, and one can't expect others to know the small - albeit
> important - details.
>
> I had seen a couple posts that made me feel like my original
response, vis
> a vis a Partch tuning, had been in poor form, and I just wanted to
assure
> anyone reading that there was no slight intended.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

let us hope that people can learn to appreciate being corrected in their mistakes. i am, in that i often learn things i wouldn't otherwise.
i don't remember anyone called him names at all.
the alternative is to let such mistakes persist to the point where the person might say this same information at an even more delicate time.
Jon Szanto wrote:

>Paolo,
>
>{you wrote...}
> >
>>I don't think telling him how ignorant he is about Partch and posts of >>that nature would be productive at this time. ;)
>> >>
>
>I feel badly if somehow the way I responded to your original post made it >seem like I was condescending or rude. I know that I was writing to 'our' >audience, people who already know those minute but important differences in >tuning accuracy, and I would never be anything but polite and sensitive >when I would write to them. I have collaborated with 3 vendors of software >instruments in this manner, and I can assure you that things were explained >patiently to them and with firm knowledge of the fact that this is a very >arcane area, and one can't expect others to know the small - albeit >important - details.
>
>I had seen a couple posts that made me feel like my original response, vis >a vis a Partch tuning, had been in poor form, and I just wanted to assure >anyone reading that there was no slight intended.
>
>Cheers,
>Jon >
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles