Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

That should be the difference between 20/13 and 14/9...I think (?!)

I'm trying to design an 87-note scale, with the strange idea that it has three registers: bass, mid, and treble, and that it has fewest pitches in the bass, more in the mid, and more in the treble.

This is an attempt to wring every bit of use out of 88 keys on a standard keyboard. It's assumed that the whole tuning base can be moved to any frequency, so it's a matter of a certain kind of convenience. It's purely for the EXS24 instruments in Logic and PianoTeq.

It's more or less a 13-limit JI scale in essence, with a stack of 3/2's going up to 27, and including 15/8, 16/15, of course.

I've been working with this idea for a couple of days, and I'm committed. Gonna marry the scale.

But in trying to pack every useful register-specific ratio into 88 keys, I sacrificed 14/9 up top. It's close (ratio of 90:91) to 20/13, which I feel I need.

Is there some elegant way to split the difference -- a tuning very strong in the 13-limit?

This is a question that the experts can probably answer in two seconds flat, without breaking a sweat. (Mike B., Graham B., Gene W. S., -- all the cats)

Now, I feel I'm very close to the tuning/scale I want, so I'm really looking to smooth out some rough edges, if possible.

If it's not possible, I'll live with having a 14/9 in the midrange, and none in the treble -- but that bothers me more than some other oddities of my current design, which some patient person on the list may notice, and which may cause them to chortle.

I wouldn't mind if the edo tempers out some other pitches and I end up with fewer than 87 pitches, but the EDO has to do very well in the 13-limit, and preserve the 80/81 comma -- that is, preserve the difference between 10/9 and 9/8.

After I post this, I'm going to try the usual EDOs between, say 53 and 111. Maybe I'll get lucky.

Caleb

Here's what I have currently:

!
Goober 2.3 JI
87
!
111.73129
150.63706
203.91000
231.17409
294.13500
315.64129
359.47234
386.31371
498.04500
617.48781
648.68206
701.95500
813.68629
884.35871
905.86500
933.12909
996.09000
1061.42734
1088.26871
1200.00000
1311.73129
1350.63706
1382.40371
1403.91000
1431.17409
1466.87091
1494.13500
1515.64129
1559.47234
1586.31371
1635.08410
1698.04500
1763.38234
1782.51219
1817.48781
1848.68206
1901.95500
1945.78605
1964.91590
2013.68629
2052.59206
2084.35871
2105.86500
2133.12909
2168.82591
2196.09000
2217.59629
2234.99577
2261.42734
2288.26871
2400.00000
2511.73129
2528.29824
2538.57266
2550.63706
2565.00423
2582.40371
2603.91000
2631.17409
2666.87091
2694.13500
2715.64129
2747.40794
2786.31371
2807.82000
2817.50796
2898.04500
2951.31794
2982.51219
3017.48781
3101.95500
3145.78605
3182.49204
3213.68629
3240.52766
3252.59206
3284.35871
3305.86500
3333.12909
3368.82591
3396.09000
3417.59629
3434.99577
3449.36294
3461.42734
3488.26871
3600.00000

"calebmrgn" <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

19[pe], 27e, 15, 9, 29, 10p, 22p, 46, 31f.

> That should be the difference between 20/13 and 14/9...I think (?!)

Yes.

> This is a question that the experts can probably answer in two seconds flat, without breaking a sweat. (Mike B., Graham B., Gene W. S., -- all the cats)

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=91:90&page=0

Graham

Thanks for the answer!  I'm not smart enough to use that information.

I've simply eliminated 14/9 from my scale, and raised 20/13 by a couple of cents.  20/13 will be the "7th" of /9.  If I want more accuracy in that tonality, I move the tuning-base.

That might be enough.  But maybe there's a way to improve or slightly polish my scale.

I'm using Lil' Miss Scale Oven, which has a feature which lets you take any Scala file, any tuning, and quantize it to some consistent unit of cents.  So it's very, very easy to use for someone like me, who doesn't understand the theory of temperaments very well.

What might be some high-value EDOs which would give me good results?

In the past, I've liked 87 and 89edo, but as far as I remember, they don't give a good 13/8 or 16/13.  Those 13 ratios need to be *very* accurate or they don't sound right.

Here are some of my premises:

1) Don't care about consistent step-sizes.

2) Don't need or want to play in any "key" -- I'm only going to be moving my tuning base to obvious places like 4/3, 8/5, 16/13, 16/11, perhaps 9/8, etc.

3) I prefer JI, but I don't mind a little slow beating. I prefer my 5ths slightly wide or sharp, or dead-on.

4) Don't care how gnarly or ugly or hard-to-memorize the scale is -- this is only for my personal use, and I have the rest of my life to learn it, if necessary.  Don't care about consistent fingering.

5) This tuning is not intended for playing Bach, or other traditional music.

6) I feel -- without being able to justify the feeling -- that the simpler the ratio and the more basic the function in the tonality of 1/1, the wider the "gravitional zone" around the note.  So in a tonal system like this, small intervals around 1/1 and 3/2 are generally to be eschewed, with exceptions.  That's an opportunity to eliminate some pitches.

Here's the scale in ratios.  There's some format problem that's making it not work as a Scala file, I think.  Not sure why.

!GuberMensch Tuning
! 
Goober 2.0 JI
 87
! !1  
16/15 !2 
12/11  !3 
9/8 !4  
8/7  !5 
32/27!6
6/5 !7 
16/13 !8  
5/4 !9  
4/3  !10 
10/7  !11 
16/11  !12 
3/2  !13 
8/5  !14 
5/3  !15 
27/16!16
12/7!17
16/9 !18  
24/13!19
15/8!20
!
2/1 !21
32/15 !22
24/11 !23
20/9 !24
9/4 !25
16/7 !26
7/3 !27
64/27!28
12/5 !29
32/13 !30
5/2 !31
18/7 !32
8/3 !33
36/13!34 
14/5 !35
20/7 !36
32/11 !37
3/1 !38
1949.0!39 
!
16/5 !40
36/11!41 
10/3 !42
27/8!43   
24/7 !44
7/2 !45
32/9 !46
18/5!47 
40/11 !48
48/13!49 
15/4!50
!
4/1 !51
64/15 !52
56/13!53 
52/12 !54
48/11 !55
22/5 !56
40/9!57 
9/2 !58
32/7!59 
14/3 !60
128/27!61 
24/5 !62
44/9!63
5/1 !64
81/16!65 
56/11!66 
16/3 !67
11/2 !68
28/5 !69
40/7!70 
6/1 !71
3149.0!72 
44/7 !73
32/5 !74
52/8 !75
72/11!76 
20/3 !77
27/4 !78
48/7 !79
7/1 !80
64/9 !81
36/5 !82
80/11!83
22/3 !84
96/13!85 
15/2 !86
8/1!87

________________________________
From: Graham Breed <gbreed@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
"calebmrgn" calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

19[pe], 27e, 15, 9, 29, 10p, 22p, 46, 31f.

> That should be the difference between 20/13 and 14/9...I think (?!)

Yes.

> This is a question that the experts can probably answer in two seconds flat, without breaking a sweat. (Mike B., Graham B., Gene W. S., -- all the cats)

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=91:90&page=0

Graham

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is pretty close.  May even be the final version if I don't find anything I consider to be flaws.

I made some small tweaks, but decided to preserve the 81/16 to 14/11 difference, also substituted 16/13 for 11/9 in the top register.

Here's a version quantized to 111edo (111=3x37)

This is a working Scala file that I'm trying out with PianoTeq

!
GuberMensch 2.8 111edo
 87
!
 108.10800
 151.35100
 205.40500
 227.02700
 291.89200
 313.51400
 356.75700
 389.18900
 497.29700
 616.21600
 648.64900
 702.70300
 810.81100
 886.48600
 908.10800
 929.73000
 994.59500
 1059.45900
 1091.89200
 1200.00000
 1308.10800
 1351.35100
 1383.78400
 1405.40500
 1427.02700
 1470.27000
 1491.89200
 1513.51400
 1556.75700
 1589.18900
 1632.43200
 1697.29700
 1762.16200
 1783.78400
 1816.21600
 1848.64900
 1902.70300
 1945.94600
 2010.81100
 2054.05400
 2086.48600
 2108.10800
 2129.73000
 2172.97300
 2194.59500
 2216.21600
 2237.83800
 2248.64900
 2259.45900
 2291.89200
 2400.00000
 2508.10800
 2529.73000
 2540.54100
 2551.35100
 2562.16200
 2583.78400
 2605.40500
 2627.02700
 2670.27000
 2691.89200
 2713.51400
 2756.75700
 2789.18900
 2810.81100
 2821.62200
 2897.29700
 2951.35100
 2983.78400
 3016.21600
 3102.70300
 3145.94600
 3178.37800
 3210.81100
 3243.24300
 3254.05400
 3286.48600
 3308.10800
 3329.73000
 3372.97300
 3394.59500
 3416.21600
 3437.83800
 3448.64900
 3459.45900
 3491.89200
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Thanks for the answer!  I'm not smart enough to use that information.

I've simply eliminated 14/9 from my scale, and raised 20/13 by a couple of cents.  20/13 will be the "7th" of /9.  If I want more accuracy in that tonality, I move the tuning-base.

That might be enough.  But maybe there's a way to improve or slightly polish my scale.

I'm using Lil' Miss Scale Oven, which has a feature which lets you take any Scala file, any tuning, and quantize it to some consistent unit of cents.  So it's very, very easy to use for someone like me, who doesn't understand the theory of temperaments very well.

What might be some high-value EDOs which would give me good results?

In the past, I've liked 87 and 89edo, but as far as I remember, they don't give a good 13/8 or 16/13.  Those 13 ratios need to be *very* accurate or they don't sound right.

Here are some of my premises:

1) Don't care about consistent step-sizes.

2) Don't need or want to play in any "key" -- I'm only going to be moving my tuning base to obvious places like 4/3, 8/5, 16/13, 16/11, perhaps 9/8, etc.

3) I prefer JI, but I don't mind a little slow beating. I prefer my 5ths slightly wide or sharp, or dead-on.

4) Don't care how gnarly or ugly or hard-to-memorize the scale is -- this is only for my personal use, and I have the rest of my life to learn it, if necessary.  Don't care about consistent fingering.

5) This tuning is not intended for playing Bach, or other traditional music.

6) I feel -- without being able to justify the feeling -- that the simpler the ratio and the more basic the function in the tonality of 1/1, the wider the "gravitional zone" around the note.  So in a tonal system like this, small intervals around 1/1 and 3/2 are generally to be eschewed, with exceptions.  That's an opportunity to eliminate some pitches.

Here's the scale in ratios.  There's some format problem that's making it not work as a Scala file, I think.  Not sure why.

!GuberMensch Tuning
! 
Goober 2.0 JI
 87
! !1  
16/15 !2 
12/11  !3 
9/8 !4  
8/7  !5 
32/27!6
6/5 !7 
16/13 !8  
5/4 !9  
4/3  !10 
10/7  !11 
16/11  !12 
3/2  !13 
8/5  !14 
5/3  !15 
27/16!16
12/7!17
16/9 !18  
24/13!19
15/8!20
!
2/1 !21
32/15 !22
24/11 !23
20/9 !24
9/4 !25
16/7 !26
7/3 !27
64/27!28
12/5 !29
32/13 !30
5/2 !31
18/7 !32
8/3 !33
36/13!34 
14/5 !35
20/7 !36
32/11 !37
3/1 !38
1949.0!39 
!
16/5 !40
36/11!41 
10/3 !42
27/8!43   
24/7 !44
7/2 !45
32/9 !46
18/5!47 
40/11 !48
48/13!49 
15/4!50
!
4/1 !51
64/15 !52
56/13!53 
52/12 !54
48/11 !55
22/5 !56
40/9!57 
9/2 !58
32/7!59 
14/3 !60
128/27!61 
24/5 !62
44/9!63
5/1 !64
81/16!65 
56/11!66 
16/3 !67
11/2 !68
28/5 !69
40/7!70 
6/1 !71
3149.0!72 
44/7 !73
32/5 !74
52/8 !75
72/11!76 
20/3 !77
27/4 !78
48/7 !79
7/1 !80
64/9 !81
36/5 !82
80/11!83
22/3 !84
96/13!85 
15/2 !86
8/1!87

________________________________
From: Graham Breed gbreed@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2013 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
"calebmrgn" calebmrgn@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

19[pe], 27e, 15, 9, 29, 10p, 22p, 46, 31f.

> That should be the difference between 20/13 and 14/9...I think (?!)

Yes.

> This is a question that the experts can probably answer in two seconds flat, without breaking a sweat. (Mike B., Graham B., Gene W. S., -- all the cats)

http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?uvs=91:90&page=0

Graham

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

I'll try it again, though I've looked at it in the past.

Give me an hour or so, I'll report on the difference between 111, 87, 89, and 46edo for this setup.

Actually, it was a remark you made about trying to get more octaves out of 46edo on a conventional keyboard that got me started on this idea.

caleb

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.

Longer version:

I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.

Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.

Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.

As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.

This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.

Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.

Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.

Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.

Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.

For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.

I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.

There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.

I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.

It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.

Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.

Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.

Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.

If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.

The rest is personal.

Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...m>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@gmail.com>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Maybe there's hope for me.

Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones.  That means the patterns repeat in tritones.

You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.

The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.

However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.

Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.

87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.

It's symmetrical.

Srutis Difference:  12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12

Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174

Scala file:

!
42 tones of 87 #5
 42
!
 82.75900
 110.34500
 124.13800
 137.93100
 151.72400
 179.31000
 206.89700
 234.48300
 262.06900
 289.65500
 317.24100
 344.82800
 358.62100
 386.20700
 413.79300
 441.37900
 455.17200
 496.55200
 551.72400
 579.31000
 600.00000
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 744.82700
 758.62100
 786.20700
 813.79300
 841.37900
 855.17200
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 965.51700
 993.10300
 1020.69000
 1048.27600
 1062.06900
 1075.86200
 1089.65500
 1117.24100
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.

Longer version:

I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.

Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.

Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.

As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.

This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.

Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.

Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.

Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.

Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.

For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.

I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.

There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.

I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.

It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.

Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.

Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.

Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.

If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.

The rest is personal.

Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think this is the framework I'm going with.

Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.

43 pitches of 87 edo.  Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.

A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.

Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.

Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.

I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns.  There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.

Scala file:

!
43 tones of 87 #3
 43
!
 82.75862
 110.34483
 124.13793
 151.72414
 165.51724
 179.31034
 206.89655
 234.48276
 262.06897
 289.65517
 317.24138
 344.82759
 358.62069
 386.20690
 413.79310
 441.37931
 455.17241
 496.55172
 551.72414
 565.51724
 579.31034
 620.68966
 634.48276
 648.27586
 703.44828
 744.82759
 758.62069
 786.20690
 813.79310
 841.37931
 855.17241
 882.75862
 910.34483
 937.93103
 965.51724
 993.10345
 1020.68966
 1034.48276
 1048.27586
 1062.06897
 1089.65517
 1117.24138
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Maybe there's hope for me.

Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones.  That means the patterns repeat in tritones.

You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.

The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.

However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.

Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.

87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.

It's symmetrical.

Srutis Difference:  12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12

Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174

Scala file:

!
42 tones of 87 #5
 42
!
 82.75900
 110.34500
 124.13800
 137.93100
 151.72400
 179.31000
 206.89700
 234.48300
 262.06900
 289.65500
 317.24100
 344.82800
 358.62100
 386.20700
 413.79300
 441.37900
 455.17200
 496.55200
 551.72400
 579.31000
 600.00000
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 744.82700
 758.62100
 786.20700
 813.79300
 841.37900
 855.17200
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 965.51700
 993.10300
 1020.69000
 1048.27600
 1062.06900
 1075.86200
 1089.65500
 1117.24100
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.

Longer version:

I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.

Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.

Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.

As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.

This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.

Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.

Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.

Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.

Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.

For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.

I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.

There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.

I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.

It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.

Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.

Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.

Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.

If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.

The rest is personal.

Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@gmail.com>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Caleb,

This will be impressive to pull off!

A video of you performing would be great to see. I think we all could learn
from the trail you are blazing here.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on
> both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
> leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75
> cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with
> number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
> synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
> difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
> 43
> !
> 82.75862
> 110.34483
> 124.13793
> 151.72414
> 165.51724
> 179.31034
> 206.89655
> 234.48276
> 262.06897
> 289.65517
> 317.24138
> 344.82759
> 358.62069
> 386.20690
> 413.79310
> 441.37931
> 455.17241
> 496.55172
> 551.72414
> 565.51724
> 579.31034
> 620.68966
> 634.48276
> 648.27586
> 703.44828
> 744.82759
> 758.62069
> 786.20690
> 813.79310
> 841.37931
> 855.17241
> 882.75862
> 910.34483
> 937.93103
> 965.51724
> 993.10345
> 1020.68966
> 1034.48276
> 1048.27586
> 1062.06897
> 1089.65517
> 1117.24138
>
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
> tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
> scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to
> get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite
> figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while
> still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6,
> 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
> 42
> !
> 82.75900
> 110.34500
> 124.13800
> 137.93100
> 151.72400
> 179.31000
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 262.06900
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 344.82800
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 413.79300
> 441.37900
> 455.17200
> 496.55200
> 551.72400
> 579.31000
> 600.00000
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 744.82700
> 758.62100
> 786.20700
> 813.79300
> 841.37900
> 855.17200
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 965.51700
> 993.10300
> 1020.69000
> 1048.27600
> 1062.06900
> 1075.86200
> 1089.65500
> 1117.24100
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that
> I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
> would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
> hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard
> controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as
> mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
> important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
> normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in
> the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
> and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some
> intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every
> little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that
> process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
> from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
> what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand,
> such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> Forgive me. I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
> has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> 87
> !
> 110.34500
> 151.72400
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 496.55200
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 813.79300
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 993.10300
> 1062.06900
> 1089.65500
> 1200.00000
> 1310.34500
> 1351.72400
> 1379.31000
> 1406.89700
> 1434.48300
> 1462.06900
> 1489.65500
> 1517.24100
> 1558.62100
> 1586.20700
> 1641.37900
> 1696.55200
> 1765.51700
> 1779.31000
> 1820.69000
> 1848.27600
> 1903.44800
> 1944.82800
> 2013.79300
> 2055.17200
> 2082.75900
> 2110.34500
> 2137.93100
> 2165.51700
> 2193.10300
> 2220.69000
> 2234.48300
> 2248.27600
> 2262.06900
> 2289.65500
> 2400.00000
> 2510.34500
> 2524.13800
> 2537.93100
> 2551.72400
> 2565.51700
> 2579.31000
> 2606.89700
> 2634.48300
> 2662.06900
> 2689.65500
> 2717.24100
> 2758.62100
> 2786.20700
> 2813.79300
> 2835.08
> 2896.55200
> 2951.72400
> 2963.38
> 2979.31000
> 3020.69000
> 3103.44800
> 3144.82800
> 3213.79300
> 3241.37900
> 3255.17200
> 3282.75900
> 3310.34500
> 3337.93100
> 3365.51700
> 3393.10300
> 3420.69000
> 3434.48300
> 3448.27600
> 3462.06900
> 3489.65500
> 3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6.
> also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce
> new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my
> age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> > What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

That's nice of you to say.

In all honesty, I'm not discovering anything new.  It's just 13-limit JI quantized to 87edo.  

I've relied heavily on those xenharmonic Wiki pages that Gene W. S. and co. have written. (I assume it's G.W.S. or Graham Breed.  Whoever it is, those pages are really, really useful to me.)

When they keep it pretty simple and concrete, I can understand.

The advantage of quantizing to 87edo is that one can think of step-sizes in terms of simple numbers.  Also, a few commas get eliminated.

I tried 46edo, 70edo, and kept coming back to 87, which gets the 3,5,7,11,13 ratios close enough that it will do good traditional harmony plus it will do good "overtone" harmony.

I'm not really thinking in terms of 87, yet, except as a convenience.  Over time, I hope that thinking in terms of 87 will become more automatic, and I'll start to think about modulation in those terms.  That is, modulation in terms of numbers of 87 steps rather than JI ratios.

I'm still thinking in traditional/jazz/modal terms, and in terms of overtone series scales -- so again, nothing new.

In other words, it's a compromise between JI and an edo, without being too weirdo.

I can't do vids, but maybe I can post some pics of my keyboards, which are covered with ratios.

Pre-composition work like this is really fun for me and almost seductive.  Composition is much harder and much less fun, because that's when reality sets in, and one's hopes are dashed.

________________________________
From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

Hi Caleb,

This will be impressive to pull off!

A video of you performing would be great to see. I think we all could learn
from the trail you are blazing here.

Chris

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on
> both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo.  Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
> leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75
> cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with
> number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
> synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
> fingering patterns.  There always has to be a compromise, some extra
> difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
>  43
> !
>  82.75862
>  110.34483
>  124.13793
>  151.72414
>  165.51724
>  179.31034
>  206.89655
>  234.48276
>  262.06897
>  289.65517
>  317.24138
>  344.82759
>  358.62069
>  386.20690
>  413.79310
>  441.37931
>  455.17241
>  496.55172
>  551.72414
>  565.51724
>  579.31034
>  620.68966
>  634.48276
>  648.27586
>  703.44828
>  744.82759
>  758.62069
>  786.20690
>  813.79310
>  841.37931
>  855.17241
>  882.75862
>  910.34483
>  937.93103
>  965.51724
>  993.10345
>  1020.68966
>  1034.48276
>  1048.27586
>  1062.06897
>  1089.65517
>  1117.24138
>
>  1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
> keyboard, because it has 42 tones.  That means the patterns repeat in
> tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
> scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to
> get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite
> figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while
> still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference:  12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6,
> 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
>  42
> !
>  82.75900
>  110.34500
>  124.13800
>  137.93100
>  151.72400
>  179.31000
>  206.89700
>  234.48300
>  262.06900
>  289.65500
>  317.24100
>  344.82800
>  358.62100
>  386.20700
>  413.79300
>  441.37900
>  455.17200
>  496.55200
>  551.72400
>  579.31000
>  600.00000
>  620.69000
>  648.27600
>  703.44800
>  744.82700
>  758.62100
>  786.20700
>  813.79300
>  841.37900
>  855.17200
>  882.75900
>  910.34500
>  937.93100
>  965.51700
>  993.10300
>  1020.69000
>  1048.27600
>  1062.06900
>  1075.86200
>  1089.65500
>  1117.24100
>  1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>  To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that
> I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work
> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
> wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
> would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost
> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
> hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard
> controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as
> mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
> important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
> is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's
> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
> normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in
> the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is
> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend
> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with
> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
> pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
> and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with
> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
>  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from
> it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some
> intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every
> little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that
> process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
> from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
> what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand,
> such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> Forgive me.  I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
> has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
>  87
> !
>  110.34500
>  151.72400
>  206.89700
>  234.48300
>  289.65500
>  317.24100
>  358.62100
>  386.20700
>  496.55200
>  620.69000
>  648.27600
>  703.44800
>  813.79300
>  882.75900
>  910.34500
>  937.93100
>  993.10300
>  1062.06900
>  1089.65500
>  1200.00000
>  1310.34500
>  1351.72400
>  1379.31000
>  1406.89700
>  1434.48300
>  1462.06900
>  1489.65500
>  1517.24100
>  1558.62100
>  1586.20700
>  1641.37900
>  1696.55200
>  1765.51700
>  1779.31000
>  1820.69000
>  1848.27600
>  1903.44800
>  1944.82800
>  2013.79300
>  2055.17200
>  2082.75900
>  2110.34500
>  2137.93100
>  2165.51700
>  2193.10300
>  2220.69000
>  2234.48300
>  2248.27600
>  2262.06900
>  2289.65500
>  2400.00000
>  2510.34500
>  2524.13800
>  2537.93100
>  2551.72400
>  2565.51700
>  2579.31000
>  2606.89700
>  2634.48300
>  2662.06900
>  2689.65500
>  2717.24100
>  2758.62100
>  2786.20700
>  2813.79300
>  2835.08
>  2896.55200
>  2951.72400
>  2963.38
>  2979.31000
>  3020.69000
>  3103.44800
>  3144.82800
>  3213.79300
>  3241.37900
>  3255.17200
>  3282.75900
>  3310.34500
>  3337.93100
>  3365.51700
>  3393.10300
>  3420.69000
>  3434.48300
>  3448.27600
>  3462.06900
>  3489.65500
>  3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6.
> also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce
> new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my
> age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91
> comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >
> > What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.

This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.

All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.

19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds?  Yep.

However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings.  So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.

There's no one thing that's the answer.

Before today, I didn't know this was possible.

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
I think this is the framework I'm going with.

Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.

43 pitches of 87 edo.  Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.

A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.

Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.

Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.

I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns.  There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.

Scala file:

!
43 tones of 87 #3
 43
!
 82.75862
 110.34483
 124.13793
 151.72414
 165.51724
 179.31034
 206.89655
 234.48276
 262.06897
 289.65517
 317.24138
 344.82759
 358.62069
 386.20690
 413.79310
 441.37931
 455.17241
 496.55172
 551.72414
 565.51724
 579.31034
 620.68966
 634.48276
 648.27586
 703.44828
 744.82759
 758.62069
 786.20690
 813.79310
 841.37931
 855.17241
 882.75862
 910.34483
 937.93103
 965.51724
 993.10345
 1020.68966
 1034.48276
 1048.27586
 1062.06897
 1089.65517
 1117.24138
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Maybe there's hope for me.

Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones.  That means the patterns repeat in tritones.

You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.

The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.

However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.

Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.

87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.

It's symmetrical.

Srutis Difference:  12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12

Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174

Scala file:

!
42 tones of 87 #5
 42
!
 82.75900
 110.34500
 124.13800
 137.93100
 151.72400
 179.31000
 206.89700
 234.48300
 262.06900
 289.65500
 317.24100
 344.82800
 358.62100
 386.20700
 413.79300
 441.37900
 455.17200
 496.55200
 551.72400
 579.31000
 600.00000
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 744.82700
 758.62100
 786.20700
 813.79300
 841.37900
 855.17200
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 965.51700
 993.10300
 1020.69000
 1048.27600
 1062.06900
 1075.86200
 1089.65500
 1117.24100
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.

Longer version:

I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.

Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.

Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.

As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.

This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.

Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.

Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.

Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.

Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.

For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.

I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.

There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.

I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.

It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.

Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.

Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.

Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.

If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.

The rest is personal.

Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...m> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gosh Darn It!  It doesn't work!!   Foile again!

It looks like my optimism was unfounded!

It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the notes!!!!!!*

Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to live up to expectations.  The simple things are hard to do.  Overdesigned, under-tested.  Bells and whistles galore.

Logic, you are my sworn enemy.

(And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.

This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.

All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.

19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds?  Yep.

However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings.  So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.

There's no one thing that's the answer.

Before today, I didn't know this was possible.

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
I think this is the framework I'm going with.

Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.

43 pitches of 87 edo.  Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.

A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.

Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.

Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.

I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns.  There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.

Scala file:

!
43 tones of 87 #3
 43
!
 82.75862
 110.34483
 124.13793
 151.72414
 165.51724
 179.31034
 206.89655
 234.48276
 262.06897
 289.65517
 317.24138
 344.82759
 358.62069
 386.20690
 413.79310
 441.37931
 455.17241
 496.55172
 551.72414
 565.51724
 579.31034
 620.68966
 634.48276
 648.27586
 703.44828
 744.82759
 758.62069
 786.20690
 813.79310
 841.37931
 855.17241
 882.75862
 910.34483
 937.93103
 965.51724
 993.10345
 1020.68966
 1034.48276
 1048.27586
 1062.06897
 1089.65517
 1117.24138
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Maybe there's hope for me.

Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones.  That means the patterns repeat in tritones.

You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.

The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.

However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.

Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.

87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.

It's symmetrical.

Srutis Difference:  12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12

Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174

Scala file:

!
42 tones of 87 #5
 42
!
 82.75900
 110.34500
 124.13800
 137.93100
 151.72400
 179.31000
 206.89700
 234.48300
 262.06900
 289.65500
 317.24100
 344.82800
 358.62100
 386.20700
 413.79300
 441.37900
 455.17200
 496.55200
 551.72400
 579.31000
 600.00000
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 744.82700
 758.62100
 786.20700
 813.79300
 841.37900
 855.17200
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 965.51700
 993.10300
 1020.69000
 1048.27600
 1062.06900
 1075.86200
 1089.65500
 1117.24100
 1200.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
So far, so good.  To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.

Longer version:

I feel I should say something personal:  I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki).  Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.

Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.

Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.

As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far.  I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.

This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.

Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.

Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.

Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential.  Without that, the scale is horrible to play.  With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.

Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.

For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window.  But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart.  To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802.  I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free.  Dead on.

I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need.  That is no affectation or delusion.

There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.

I dislike calling this "super particular".  Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.  Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.

It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals.  Far from it.  The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing".  And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities --  rendered nearly exactly.

Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.

Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.

Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.

If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.

The rest is personal.

Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...m>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Forgive me.  I like 87.

This version has 3 or 4 fixes.  (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.  

Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.

Should be a viable Scala file:

!
GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
 87
!
 110.34500
 151.72400
 206.89700
 234.48300
 289.65500
 317.24100
 358.62100
 386.20700
 496.55200
 620.69000
 648.27600
 703.44800
 813.79300
 882.75900
 910.34500
 937.93100
 993.10300
 1062.06900
 1089.65500
 1200.00000
 1310.34500
 1351.72400
 1379.31000
 1406.89700
 1434.48300
 1462.06900
 1489.65500
 1517.24100
 1558.62100
 1586.20700
 1641.37900
 1696.55200
 1765.51700
 1779.31000
 1820.69000
 1848.27600
 1903.44800
 1944.82800
 2013.79300
 2055.17200
 2082.75900
 2110.34500
 2137.93100
 2165.51700
 2193.10300
 2220.69000
 2234.48300
 2248.27600
 2262.06900
 2289.65500
 2400.00000
 2510.34500
 2524.13800
 2537.93100
 2551.72400
 2565.51700
 2579.31000
 2606.89700
 2634.48300
 2662.06900
 2689.65500
 2717.24100
 2758.62100
 2786.20700
 2813.79300
 2835.08
 2896.55200
 2951.72400
 2963.38
 2979.31000
 3020.69000
 3103.44800
 3144.82800
 3213.79300
 3241.37900
 3255.17200
 3282.75900
 3310.34500
 3337.93100
 3365.51700
 3393.10300
 3420.69000
 3434.48300
 3448.27600
 3462.06900
 3489.65500
 3600.00000

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!

It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.

These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.

I can live without those differences.

With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.

The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.

The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.

It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.

Thanks, Mike.

I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.

Results to follow. 

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?

 
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...m> wrote:
>
> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?

I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO. And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns" in 11-EDO.

I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and age.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>
> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>
> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the notes!!!!!!*
>
> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned, under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>
> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>
> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>
> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>
> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>
> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>
> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>
> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>
> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
> 43
> !
> 82.75862
> 110.34483
> 124.13793
> 151.72414
> 165.51724
> 179.31034
> 206.89655
> 234.48276
> 262.06897
> 289.65517
> 317.24138
> 344.82759
> 358.62069
> 386.20690
> 413.79310
> 441.37931
> 455.17241
> 496.55172
> 551.72414
> 565.51724
> 579.31034
> 620.68966
> 634.48276
> 648.27586
> 703.44828
> 744.82759
> 758.62069
> 786.20690
> 813.79310
> 841.37931
> 855.17241
> 882.75862
> 910.34483
> 937.93103
> 965.51724
> 993.10345
> 1020.68966
> 1034.48276
> 1048.27586
> 1062.06897
> 1089.65517
> 1117.24138
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
> 42
> !
> 82.75900
> 110.34500
> 124.13800
> 137.93100
> 151.72400
> 179.31000
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 262.06900
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 344.82800
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 413.79300
> 441.37900
> 455.17200
> 496.55200
> 551.72400
> 579.31000
> 600.00000
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 744.82700
> 758.62100
> 786.20700
> 813.79300
> 841.37900
> 855.17200
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 965.51700
> 993.10300
> 1020.69000
> 1048.27600
> 1062.06900
> 1075.86200
> 1089.65500
> 1117.24100
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music. Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Forgive me. I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> 87
> !
> 110.34500
> 151.72400
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 496.55200
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 813.79300
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 993.10300
> 1062.06900
> 1089.65500
> 1200.00000
> 1310.34500
> 1351.72400
> 1379.31000
> 1406.89700
> 1434.48300
> 1462.06900
> 1489.65500
> 1517.24100
> 1558.62100
> 1586.20700
> 1641.37900
> 1696.55200
> 1765.51700
> 1779.31000
> 1820.69000
> 1848.27600
> 1903.44800
> 1944.82800
> 2013.79300
> 2055.17200
> 2082.75900
> 2110.34500
> 2137.93100
> 2165.51700
> 2193.10300
> 2220.69000
> 2234.48300
> 2248.27600
> 2262.06900
> 2289.65500
> 2400.00000
> 2510.34500
> 2524.13800
> 2537.93100
> 2551.72400
> 2565.51700
> 2579.31000
> 2606.89700
> 2634.48300
> 2662.06900
> 2689.65500
> 2717.24100
> 2758.62100
> 2786.20700
> 2813.79300
> 2835.08
> 2896.55200
> 2951.72400
> 2963.38
> 2979.31000
> 3020.69000
> 3103.44800
> 3144.82800
> 3213.79300
> 3241.37900
> 3255.17200
> 3282.75900
> 3310.34500
> 3337.93100
> 3365.51700
> 3393.10300
> 3420.69000
> 3434.48300
> 3448.27600
> 3462.06900
> 3489.65500
> 3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@...m>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>
>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro.  That's what I'm talking about.

I'm looking for polyphonic control of:  fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND volume.

Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes, without having a zillion tracks per instrument.

It can't be done, it seems.

It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24 sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.

Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch.  This works, and is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to polyphonically control volume.  (The result is like a microtonal organ -- no touch.) 

I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with a sequencer.  Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go back and forth.

In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.

Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.

________________________________
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO. And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns" in 11-EDO.

I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and age.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>
> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>
> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the notes!!!!!!*
>
> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned, under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>
> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>
> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>
> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>
> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>
> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>
> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>
> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>
> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
> 43
> !
> 82.75862
> 110.34483
> 124.13793
> 151.72414
> 165.51724
> 179.31034
> 206.89655
> 234.48276
> 262.06897
> 289.65517
> 317.24138
> 344.82759
> 358.62069
> 386.20690
> 413.79310
> 441.37931
> 455.17241
> 496.55172
> 551.72414
> 565.51724
> 579.31034
> 620.68966
> 634.48276
> 648.27586
> 703.44828
> 744.82759
> 758.62069
> 786.20690
> 813.79310
> 841.37931
> 855.17241
> 882.75862
> 910.34483
> 937.93103
> 965.51724
> 993.10345
> 1020.68966
> 1034.48276
> 1048.27586
> 1062.06897
> 1089.65517
> 1117.24138
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
> 42
> !
> 82.75900
> 110.34500
> 124.13800
> 137.93100
> 151.72400
> 179.31000
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 262.06900
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 344.82800
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 413.79300
> 441.37900
> 455.17200
> 496.55200
> 551.72400
> 579.31000
> 600.00000
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 744.82700
> 758.62100
> 786.20700
> 813.79300
> 841.37900
> 855.17200
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 965.51700
> 993.10300
> 1020.69000
> 1048.27600
> 1062.06900
> 1075.86200
> 1089.65500
> 1117.24100
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music. Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Forgive me. I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> 87
> !
> 110.34500
> 151.72400
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 496.55200
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 813.79300
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 993.10300
> 1062.06900
> 1089.65500
> 1200.00000
> 1310.34500
> 1351.72400
> 1379.31000
> 1406.89700
> 1434.48300
> 1462.06900
> 1489.65500
> 1517.24100
> 1558.62100
> 1586.20700
> 1641.37900
> 1696.55200
> 1765.51700
> 1779.31000
> 1820.69000
> 1848.27600
> 1903.44800
> 1944.82800
> 2013.79300
> 2055.17200
> 2082.75900
> 2110.34500
> 2137.93100
> 2165.51700
> 2193.10300
> 2220.69000
> 2234.48300
> 2248.27600
> 2262.06900
> 2289.65500
> 2400.00000
> 2510.34500
> 2524.13800
> 2537.93100
> 2551.72400
> 2565.51700
> 2579.31000
> 2606.89700
> 2634.48300
> 2662.06900
> 2689.65500
> 2717.24100
> 2758.62100
> 2786.20700
> 2813.79300
> 2835.08
> 2896.55200
> 2951.72400
> 2963.38
> 2979.31000
> 3020.69000
> 3103.44800
> 3144.82800
> 3213.79300
> 3241.37900
> 3255.17200
> 3282.75900
> 3310.34500
> 3337.93100
> 3365.51700
> 3393.10300
> 3420.69000
> 3434.48300
> 3448.27600
> 3462.06900
> 3489.65500
> 3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>
>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This *might* work:

velocity controls fine pitch (this works)

next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked

next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".

I'm testing this now, it seems to work.

There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the control) but are too dumb or too lazy.

caleb

(p.s. dear Caleb, good luck.  if this works, it could change your life)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro.  That's what I'm talking about.

I'm looking for polyphonic control of:  fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND volume.

Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes, without having a zillion tracks per instrument.

It can't be done, it seems.

It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24 sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.

Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch.  This works, and is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to polyphonically control volume.  (The result is like a microtonal organ -- no touch.) 

I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with a sequencer.  Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go back and forth.

In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.

Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.

________________________________
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO. And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns" in 11-EDO.

I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and age.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>
> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>
> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the notes!!!!!!*
>
> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned, under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>
> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>
> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>
> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>
> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>
> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>
> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>
> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>
> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
> 43
> !
> 82.75862
> 110.34483
> 124.13793
> 151.72414
> 165.51724
> 179.31034
> 206.89655
> 234.48276
> 262.06897
> 289.65517
> 317.24138
> 344.82759
> 358.62069
> 386.20690
> 413.79310
> 441.37931
> 455.17241
> 496.55172
> 551.72414
> 565.51724
> 579.31034
> 620.68966
> 634.48276
> 648.27586
> 703.44828
> 744.82759
> 758.62069
> 786.20690
> 813.79310
> 841.37931
> 855.17241
> 882.75862
> 910.34483
> 937.93103
> 965.51724
> 993.10345
> 1020.68966
> 1034.48276
> 1048.27586
> 1062.06897
> 1089.65517
> 1117.24138
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
> 42
> !
> 82.75900
> 110.34500
> 124.13800
> 137.93100
> 151.72400
> 179.31000
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 262.06900
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 344.82800
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 413.79300
> 441.37900
> 455.17200
> 496.55200
> 551.72400
> 579.31000
> 600.00000
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 744.82700
> 758.62100
> 786.20700
> 813.79300
> 841.37900
> 855.17200
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 965.51700
> 993.10300
> 1020.69000
> 1048.27600
> 1062.06900
> 1075.86200
> 1089.65500
> 1117.24100
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music. Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Forgive me. I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> 87
> !
> 110.34500
> 151.72400
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 496.55200
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 813.79300
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 993.10300
> 1062.06900
> 1089.65500
> 1200.00000
> 1310.34500
> 1351.72400
> 1379.31000
> 1406.89700
> 1434.48300
> 1462.06900
> 1489.65500
> 1517.24100
> 1558.62100
> 1586.20700
> 1641.37900
> 1696.55200
> 1765.51700
> 1779.31000
> 1820.69000
> 1848.27600
> 1903.44800
> 1944.82800
> 2013.79300
> 2055.17200
> 2082.75900
> 2110.34500
> 2137.93100
> 2165.51700
> 2193.10300
> 2220.69000
> 2234.48300
> 2248.27600
> 2262.06900
> 2289.65500
> 2400.00000
> 2510.34500
> 2524.13800
> 2537.93100
> 2551.72400
> 2565.51700
> 2579.31000
> 2606.89700
> 2634.48300
> 2662.06900
> 2689.65500
> 2717.24100
> 2758.62100
> 2786.20700
> 2813.79300
> 2835.08
> 2896.55200
> 2951.72400
> 2963.38
> 2979.31000
> 3020.69000
> 3103.44800
> 3144.82800
> 3213.79300
> 3241.37900
> 3255.17200
> 3282.75900
> 3310.34500
> 3337.93100
> 3365.51700
> 3393.10300
> 3420.69000
> 3434.48300
> 3448.27600
> 3462.06900
> 3489.65500
> 3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>
>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nah, doesn't work.

Have to stick with your 36-pitch subset of 87 edo, 11-limit, and all the problems that go with that.

The big problem is not memorizing it.  I did that over ten years ago.  The big problem is limited range on a sequencer that already is pushed to the max, and the complexity of using lots of instruments to overcome the range problem.

One avenue of further research:  Investigate all the "modes" of your 36-pitch scale.  Perhaps there's some starting point that you haven't considered that would have additional resources.  These modes are only a (global) pitch-bend away.

If only it were possible to specify pitch as pitch class (point) decimal, like the good old days with Music 11, and do it in Logic, life would be much easier.

The reason I'm committed to Logic is that I've built up a bunch of sounds that I can at least tolerate.  Stock sounds usually suck.

There are always workarounds, with trade-offs.

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com" <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
This *might* work:

velocity controls fine pitch (this works)

next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked

next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".

I'm testing this now, it seems to work.

There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the control) but are too dumb or too lazy.

caleb

(p.s. dear Caleb, good luck.  if this works, it could change your life)

________________________________
From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro.  That's what I'm talking about.

I'm looking for polyphonic control of:  fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND volume.

Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes, without having a zillion tracks per instrument.

It can't be done, it seems.

It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24 sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.

Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch.  This works, and is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to polyphonically control volume.  (The result is like a microtonal organ -- no touch.) 

I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with a sequencer.  Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go back and forth.

In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.

Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.

________________________________
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO. And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns" in 11-EDO.

I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and age.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>
> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>
> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the notes!!!!!!*
>
> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned, under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>
> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>
> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>
> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI, completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>
> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>
> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>
> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>
> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>
> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>
> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1 on both keyboards.
>
> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by leaving out some pitches he included.
>
> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>
> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become synonymous in my mind.
>
> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>
> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra difficulty.
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 43 tones of 87 #3
> 43
> !
> 82.75862
> 110.34483
> 124.13793
> 151.72414
> 165.51724
> 179.31034
> 206.89655
> 234.48276
> 262.06897
> 289.65517
> 317.24138
> 344.82759
> 358.62069
> 386.20690
> 413.79310
> 441.37931
> 455.17241
> 496.55172
> 551.72414
> 565.51724
> 579.31034
> 620.68966
> 634.48276
> 648.27586
> 703.44828
> 744.82759
> 758.62069
> 786.20690
> 813.79310
> 841.37931
> 855.17241
> 882.75862
> 910.34483
> 937.93103
> 965.51724
> 993.10345
> 1020.68966
> 1034.48276
> 1048.27586
> 1062.06897
> 1089.65517
> 1117.24138
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Maybe there's hope for me.
>
> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in tritones.
>
> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding scale.
>
> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy to get oriented.
>
> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one, while still preserving the basic layout.
>
> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>
> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>
> It's symmetrical.
>
> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>
> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52, 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124, 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>
> Scala file:
>
> !
> 42 tones of 87 #5
> 42
> !
> 82.75900
> 110.34500
> 124.13800
> 137.93100
> 151.72400
> 179.31000
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 262.06900
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 344.82800
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 413.79300
> 441.37900
> 455.17200
> 496.55200
> 551.72400
> 579.31000
> 600.00000
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 744.82700
> 758.62100
> 786.20700
> 813.79300
> 841.37900
> 855.17200
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 965.51700
> 993.10300
> 1020.69000
> 1048.27600
> 1062.06900
> 1075.86200
> 1089.65500
> 1117.24100
> 1200.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and that I like this tuning I've posted.
>
> Longer version:
>
> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions would take *much* longer.
>
> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>
> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be lost.
>
> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>
> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I hear, and the way I think.
>
> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important as mathematical facts in this process.
>
> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as important as hi-tech solutions.
>
> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios, is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>
> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a normal piano.
>
> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>
> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>
> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am -- and being mistaken about what I want.
>
> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music. Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>
> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another -- I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>
> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math in that process.
>
> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far from JI for my own work.
>
> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for what I'm trying to do.
>
> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>
> The rest is personal.
>
> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Forgive me. I like 87.
>
> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section has, the top section has.
>
> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>
> Should be a viable Scala file:
>
> !
> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> 87
> !
> 110.34500
> 151.72400
> 206.89700
> 234.48300
> 289.65500
> 317.24100
> 358.62100
> 386.20700
> 496.55200
> 620.69000
> 648.27600
> 703.44800
> 813.79300
> 882.75900
> 910.34500
> 937.93100
> 993.10300
> 1062.06900
> 1089.65500
> 1200.00000
> 1310.34500
> 1351.72400
> 1379.31000
> 1406.89700
> 1434.48300
> 1462.06900
> 1489.65500
> 1517.24100
> 1558.62100
> 1586.20700
> 1641.37900
> 1696.55200
> 1765.51700
> 1779.31000
> 1820.69000
> 1848.27600
> 1903.44800
> 1944.82800
> 2013.79300
> 2055.17200
> 2082.75900
> 2110.34500
> 2137.93100
> 2165.51700
> 2193.10300
> 2220.69000
> 2234.48300
> 2248.27600
> 2262.06900
> 2289.65500
> 2400.00000
> 2510.34500
> 2524.13800
> 2537.93100
> 2551.72400
> 2565.51700
> 2579.31000
> 2606.89700
> 2634.48300
> 2662.06900
> 2689.65500
> 2717.24100
> 2758.62100
> 2786.20700
> 2813.79300
> 2835.08
> 2896.55200
> 2951.72400
> 2963.38
> 2979.31000
> 3020.69000
> 3103.44800
> 3144.82800
> 3213.79300
> 3241.37900
> 3255.17200
> 3282.75900
> 3310.34500
> 3337.93100
> 3365.51700
> 3393.10300
> 3420.69000
> 3434.48300
> 3448.27600
> 3462.06900
> 3489.65500
> 3600.00000
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>
> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>
> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>
> I can live without those differences.
>
> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>
> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>
> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>
> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>
> Thanks, Mike.
>
> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>
> Results to follow.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out 90/91 comma?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>
>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>
> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can the release velocity be mapped to fine pitch? Then you may be able to
precede the NOTE_ONs with NOTE_OFFs with the pitch info.

On 17 March 2013 16:49, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> This *might* work:
>
> velocity controls fine pitch (this works)
>
> next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make
> sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked
>
> next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".
>
> I'm testing this now, it seems to work.
>
> There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of
> people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the
> control) but are too dumb or too lazy.
>
> caleb
>
> (p.s. dear Caleb, good luck. if this works, it could change your life)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro. That's
> what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm looking for polyphonic control of: fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND
> volume.
>
> Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes,
> without having a zillion tracks per instrument.
>
> It can't be done, it seems.
>
> It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24
> sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.
>
> Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch. This works, and
> is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to
> polyphonically control volume. (The result is like a microtonal organ --
> no touch.)
>
> I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with
> a sequencer. Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go
> back and forth.
>
> In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need
> to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.
>
> Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its
> full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to
> Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO.
> And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and
> MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output
> using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns"
> in 11-EDO.
>
> I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly
> enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and
> age.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>
> > Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
> >
> > It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
> >
> > It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic
> supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work
> polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the
> notes!!!!!!*
> >
> > Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to
> live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned,
> under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
> >
> > Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
> >
> > (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch
> code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments
> -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
> >
> > This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI,
> completely changeable at any moment without bother.
> >
> > All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this
> means I don't have to be restricted any more.
> >
> > 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
> >
> > However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying
> things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those
> large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
> >
> > There's no one thing that's the answer.
> >
> > Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@yahoo.com>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is the framework I'm going with.
> >
> > Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1
> on both keyboards.
> >
> > 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
> leaving out some pitches he included.
> >
> > A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at
> 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
> >
> > Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels
> with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
> synonymous in my mind.
> >
> > Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
> >
> > I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
> difficulty.
> >
> > Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > 43 tones of 87 #3
> > 43
> > !
> > 82.75862
> > 110.34483
> > 124.13793
> > 151.72414
> > 165.51724
> > 179.31034
> > 206.89655
> > 234.48276
> > 262.06897
> > 289.65517
> > 317.24138
> > 344.82759
> > 358.62069
> > 386.20690
> > 413.79310
> > 441.37931
> > 455.17241
> > 496.55172
> > 551.72414
> > 565.51724
> > 579.31034
> > 620.68966
> > 634.48276
> > 648.27586
> > 703.44828
> > 744.82759
> > 758.62069
> > 786.20690
> > 813.79310
> > 841.37931
> > 855.17241
> > 882.75862
> > 910.34483
> > 937.93103
> > 965.51724
> > 993.10345
> > 1020.68966
> > 1034.48276
> > 1048.27586
> > 1062.06897
> > 1089.65517
> > 1117.24138
> > 1200.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> > Maybe there's hope for me.
> >
> > Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
> tritones.
> >
> > You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
> scale.
> >
> > The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy
> to get oriented.
> >
> > However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't
> quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one,
> while still preserving the basic layout.
> >
> > Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
> >
> > 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
> >
> > It's symmetrical.
> >
> > Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2,
> 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
> >
> > Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
> >
> > Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > 42 tones of 87 #5
> > 42
> > !
> > 82.75900
> > 110.34500
> > 124.13800
> > 137.93100
> > 151.72400
> > 179.31000
> > 206.89700
> > 234.48300
> > 262.06900
> > 289.65500
> > 317.24100
> > 344.82800
> > 358.62100
> > 386.20700
> > 413.79300
> > 441.37900
> > 455.17200
> > 496.55200
> > 551.72400
> > 579.31000
> > 600.00000
> > 620.69000
> > 648.27600
> > 703.44800
> > 744.82700
> > 758.62100
> > 786.20700
> > 813.79300
> > 841.37900
> > 855.17200
> > 882.75900
> > 910.34500
> > 937.93100
> > 965.51700
> > 993.10300
> > 1020.69000
> > 1048.27600
> > 1062.06900
> > 1075.86200
> > 1089.65500
> > 1117.24100
> > 1200.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> > So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and
> that I like this tuning I've posted.
> >
> > Longer version:
> >
> > I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
> would take *much* longer.
> >
> > Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
> >
> > Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be
> lost.
> >
> > As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
> >
> > This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
> hear, and the way I think.
> >
> > Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi
> keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important
> as mathematical facts in this process.
> >
> > Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
> important as hi-tech solutions.
> >
> > Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
> >
> > Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
> normal piano.
> >
> > For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones
> in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
> >
> > I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
> >
> > There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
> and being mistaken about what I want.
> >
> > I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
> >
> > It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals
> -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
> >
> > Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming
> every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math
> in that process.
> >
> > Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
> from JI for my own work.
> >
> > Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
> what I'm trying to do.
> >
> > If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can
> understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
> >
> > The rest is personal.
> >
> > Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > Forgive me. I like 87.
> >
> > This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
> has, the top section has.
> >
> > Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
> >
> > Should be a viable Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> > 87
> > !
> > 110.34500
> > 151.72400
> > 206.89700
> > 234.48300
> > 289.65500
> > 317.24100
> > 358.62100
> > 386.20700
> > 496.55200
> > 620.69000
> > 648.27600
> > 703.44800
> > 813.79300
> > 882.75900
> > 910.34500
> > 937.93100
> > 993.10300
> > 1062.06900
> > 1089.65500
> > 1200.00000
> > 1310.34500
> > 1351.72400
> > 1379.31000
> > 1406.89700
> > 1434.48300
> > 1462.06900
> > 1489.65500
> > 1517.24100
> > 1558.62100
> > 1586.20700
> > 1641.37900
> > 1696.55200
> > 1765.51700
> > 1779.31000
> > 1820.69000
> > 1848.27600
> > 1903.44800
> > 1944.82800
> > 2013.79300
> > 2055.17200
> > 2082.75900
> > 2110.34500
> > 2137.93100
> > 2165.51700
> > 2193.10300
> > 2220.69000
> > 2234.48300
> > 2248.27600
> > 2262.06900
> > 2289.65500
> > 2400.00000
> > 2510.34500
> > 2524.13800
> > 2537.93100
> > 2551.72400
> > 2565.51700
> > 2579.31000
> > 2606.89700
> > 2634.48300
> > 2662.06900
> > 2689.65500
> > 2717.24100
> > 2758.62100
> > 2786.20700
> > 2813.79300
> > 2835.08
> > 2896.55200
> > 2951.72400
> > 2963.38
> > 2979.31000
> > 3020.69000
> > 3103.44800
> > 3144.82800
> > 3213.79300
> > 3241.37900
> > 3255.17200
> > 3282.75900
> > 3310.34500
> > 3337.93100
> > 3365.51700
> > 3393.10300
> > 3420.69000
> > 3434.48300
> > 3448.27600
> > 3462.06900
> > 3489.65500
> > 3600.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
> >
> > It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and
> 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
> >
> > These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
> >
> > I can live without those differences.
> >
> > With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps
> introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
> >
> > The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
> >
> > The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at
> my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
> >
> > It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
> >
> > Thanks, Mike.
> >
> > I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
> >
> > Results to follow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
> >
> > I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> > to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It seems that release velocity bends *all* the pitches, just like so-called polyphonic pressure.  Oh well.  Sigh.

I just did a little test with velocity mapped to pitch.  It's easy to use, and it sounded good.

If you set it as close to the value of the velocity range (1-127) as you can (-126 cents) you can just think in cents, which makes for one less conversion chart.  The only disadvantage is that you have to always set your instrument to some offset to allow for the effect of bending the pitches both ways, relatively.  This, also, would work.

But then you sacrifice velocity mapped to everything else, of course.

Maybe for certain instruments this would be one way of working.  After all, we lived with organs with no velocity-response for centuries.  Also, you can still control the whole volume and filter level of the instrument, just not on individual notes.

It may be that the Kontakt 5 sampler plug-in would work -- better than the exs24 sampler.  I have a copy of Kontakt, so that's the next thing I'm looking into.

________________________________
From: James Fenn <thejamesfenn@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo

 
Can the release velocity be mapped to fine pitch? Then you may be able to
precede the NOTE_ONs with NOTE_OFFs with the pitch info.

On 17 March 2013 16:49, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> This *might* work:
>
> velocity controls fine pitch (this works)
>
> next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make
> sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked
>
> next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".
>
> I'm testing this now, it seems to work.
>
> There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of
> people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the
> control) but are too dumb or too lazy.
>
> caleb
>
> (p.s. dear Caleb, good luck. if this works, it could change your life)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro. That's
> what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm looking for polyphonic control of: fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND
> volume.
>
> Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes,
> without having a zillion tracks per instrument.
>
> It can't be done, it seems.
>
> It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24
> sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.
>
> Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch. This works, and
> is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to
> polyphonically control volume. (The result is like a microtonal organ --
> no touch.)
>
> I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with
> a sequencer. Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go
> back and forth.
>
> In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need
> to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.
>
> Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
> Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its
> full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to
> Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO.
> And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and
> MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output
> using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns"
> in 11-EDO.
>
> I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly
> enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and
> age.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>
> > Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
> >
> > It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
> >
> > It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic
> supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work
> polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the
> notes!!!!!!*
> >
> > Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to
> live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned,
> under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
> >
> > Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
> >
> > (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch
> code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments
> -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
> >
> > This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI,
> completely changeable at any moment without bother.
> >
> > All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this
> means I don't have to be restricted any more.
> >
> > 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
> >
> > However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying
> things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those
> large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
> >
> > There's no one thing that's the answer.
> >
> > Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> >
> > I think this is the framework I'm going with.
> >
> > Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1
> on both keyboards.
> >
> > 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
> leaving out some pitches he included.
> >
> > A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at
> 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
> >
> > Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels
> with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
> synonymous in my mind.
> >
> > Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
> >
> > I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
> difficulty.
> >
> > Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > 43 tones of 87 #3
> > 43
> > !
> > 82.75862
> > 110.34483
> > 124.13793
> > 151.72414
> > 165.51724
> > 179.31034
> > 206.89655
> > 234.48276
> > 262.06897
> > 289.65517
> > 317.24138
> > 344.82759
> > 358.62069
> > 386.20690
> > 413.79310
> > 441.37931
> > 455.17241
> > 496.55172
> > 551.72414
> > 565.51724
> > 579.31034
> > 620.68966
> > 634.48276
> > 648.27586
> > 703.44828
> > 744.82759
> > 758.62069
> > 786.20690
> > 813.79310
> > 841.37931
> > 855.17241
> > 882.75862
> > 910.34483
> > 937.93103
> > 965.51724
> > 993.10345
> > 1020.68966
> > 1034.48276
> > 1048.27586
> > 1062.06897
> > 1089.65517
> > 1117.24138
> > 1200.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> > Maybe there's hope for me.
> >
> > Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
> tritones.
> >
> > You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
> scale.
> >
> > The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy
> to get oriented.
> >
> > However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't
> quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one,
> while still preserving the basic layout.
> >
> > Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
> >
> > 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
> >
> > It's symmetrical.
> >
> > Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2,
> 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
> >
> > Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
> >
> > Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > 42 tones of 87 #5
> > 42
> > !
> > 82.75900
> > 110.34500
> > 124.13800
> > 137.93100
> > 151.72400
> > 179.31000
> > 206.89700
> > 234.48300
> > 262.06900
> > 289.65500
> > 317.24100
> > 344.82800
> > 358.62100
> > 386.20700
> > 413.79300
> > 441.37900
> > 455.17200
> > 496.55200
> > 551.72400
> > 579.31000
> > 600.00000
> > 620.69000
> > 648.27600
> > 703.44800
> > 744.82700
> > 758.62100
> > 786.20700
> > 813.79300
> > 841.37900
> > 855.17200
> > 882.75900
> > 910.34500
> > 937.93100
> > 965.51700
> > 993.10300
> > 1020.69000
> > 1048.27600
> > 1062.06900
> > 1075.86200
> > 1089.65500
> > 1117.24100
> > 1200.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
> > Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
> >
> >
> > So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and
> that I like this tuning I've posted.
> >
> > Longer version:
> >
> > I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
> would take *much* longer.
> >
> > Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
> >
> > Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be
> lost.
> >
> > As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
> >
> > This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
> hear, and the way I think.
> >
> > Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi
> keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important
> as mathematical facts in this process.
> >
> > Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
> important as hi-tech solutions.
> >
> > Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
> >
> > Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
> normal piano.
> >
> > For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones
> in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
> >
> > I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
> >
> > There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
> and being mistaken about what I want.
> >
> > I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
> >
> > It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals
> -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
> >
> > Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming
> every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math
> in that process.
> >
> > Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
> from JI for my own work.
> >
> > Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
> what I'm trying to do.
> >
> > If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can
> understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
> >
> > The rest is personal.
> >
> > Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > Forgive me. I like 87.
> >
> > This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
> has, the top section has.
> >
> > Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
> >
> > Should be a viable Scala file:
> >
> > !
> > GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
> > 87
> > !
> > 110.34500
> > 151.72400
> > 206.89700
> > 234.48300
> > 289.65500
> > 317.24100
> > 358.62100
> > 386.20700
> > 496.55200
> > 620.69000
> > 648.27600
> > 703.44800
> > 813.79300
> > 882.75900
> > 910.34500
> > 937.93100
> > 993.10300
> > 1062.06900
> > 1089.65500
> > 1200.00000
> > 1310.34500
> > 1351.72400
> > 1379.31000
> > 1406.89700
> > 1434.48300
> > 1462.06900
> > 1489.65500
> > 1517.24100
> > 1558.62100
> > 1586.20700
> > 1641.37900
> > 1696.55200
> > 1765.51700
> > 1779.31000
> > 1820.69000
> > 1848.27600
> > 1903.44800
> > 1944.82800
> > 2013.79300
> > 2055.17200
> > 2082.75900
> > 2110.34500
> > 2137.93100
> > 2165.51700
> > 2193.10300
> > 2220.69000
> > 2234.48300
> > 2248.27600
> > 2262.06900
> > 2289.65500
> > 2400.00000
> > 2510.34500
> > 2524.13800
> > 2537.93100
> > 2551.72400
> > 2565.51700
> > 2579.31000
> > 2606.89700
> > 2634.48300
> > 2662.06900
> > 2689.65500
> > 2717.24100
> > 2758.62100
> > 2786.20700
> > 2813.79300
> > 2835.08
> > 2896.55200
> > 2951.72400
> > 2963.38
> > 2979.31000
> > 3020.69000
> > 3103.44800
> > 3144.82800
> > 3213.79300
> > 3241.37900
> > 3255.17200
> > 3282.75900
> > 3310.34500
> > 3337.93100
> > 3365.51700
> > 3393.10300
> > 3420.69000
> > 3434.48300
> > 3448.27600
> > 3462.06900
> > 3489.65500
> > 3600.00000
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
> > To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
> >
> > It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and
> 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
> >
> > These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
> >
> > I can live without those differences.
> >
> > With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps
> introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
> >
> > The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
> >
> > The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at
> my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
> >
> > It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
> >
> > Thanks, Mike.
> >
> > I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
> >
> > Results to follow.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
> 90/91 comma?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
> >
> > I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
> > to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Caleb, sorry, but as a Logic user myself, I can never sacrifice velocity sensitivity when so much depends on it. We had talked about such options with Aaron Andrew Hunt prior to his design of Scordatura, and the best course anyone can suggest is to split the whole MIDI structure to ports and channels assigned in groups to specific instruments, whose pitches would then be bent per channel as the complexity of the tuning would require. If you are working with MIDI, there is no other workable route than to split a single instrument to several tracks each with its own dedicated set of notes detuned from 12-EDO - so that microtonal chords can happen without pitch traffic accidents.

Scordatura and Microsynth have further key triggers by which one can switch tunings on-the-fly during the flow of a score, and similarly alterate between any subsets of a master tuning.

I fail to see why you cannot simply introduce a middleman like Mus2 (which is phenomenally inexpensive compared to other big-market score editors) to transfer your hand-written score for a trustable multiple-channel MIDI export, which could then be easily and straightforwardly layered into Logic tracks.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> It seems that release velocity bends *all* the pitches, just like so-called polyphonic pressure. Oh well. Sigh.
>
> I just did a little test with velocity mapped to pitch. It's easy to use, and it sounded good.
>
> If you set it as close to the value of the velocity range (1-127) as you can (-126 cents) you can just think in cents, which makes for one less conversion chart. The only disadvantage is that you have to always set your instrument to some offset to allow for the effect of bending the pitches both ways, relatively. This, also, would work.
>
> But then you sacrifice velocity mapped to everything else, of course.
>
> Maybe for certain instruments this would be one way of working. After all, we lived with organs with no velocity-response for centuries. Also, you can still control the whole volume and filter level of the instrument, just not on individual notes.
>
> It may be that the Kontakt 5 sampler plug-in would work -- better than the exs24 sampler. I have a copy of Kontakt, so that's the next thing I'm looking into.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: James Fenn <thejamesfenn@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Can the release velocity be mapped to fine pitch? Then you may be able to
> precede the NOTE_ONs with NOTE_OFFs with the pitch info.
>
> On 17 March 2013 16:49, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...m> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> This *might* work:
>>
>> velocity controls fine pitch (this works)
>>
>> next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make
>> sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked
>>
>> next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".
>>
>> I'm testing this now, it seems to work.
>>
>> There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of
>> people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the
>> control) but are too dumb or too lazy.
>>
>> caleb
>>
>> (p.s. dear Caleb, good luck. if this works, it could change your life)
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>
>>
>>
>> Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro. That's
>> what I'm talking about.
>>
>> I'm looking for polyphonic control of: fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND
>> volume.
>>
>> Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes,
>> without having a zillion tracks per instrument.
>>
>> It can't be done, it seems.
>>
>> It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24
>> sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.
>>
>> Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch. This works, and
>> is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to
>> polyphonically control volume. (The result is like a microtonal organ --
>> no touch.)
>>
>> I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with
>> a sequencer. Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go
>> back and forth.
>>
>> In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need
>> to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.
>>
>> Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>
>>
>> Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its
>> full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to
>> Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO.
>> And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and
>> MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output
>> using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns"
>> in 11-EDO.
>>
>> I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly
>> enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and
>> age.
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>>
>>> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>>>
>>> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>>>
>>> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic
>> supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work
>> polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the
>> notes!!!!!!*
>>>
>>> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to
>> live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned,
>> under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>>>
>>> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>>>
>>> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@...mMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch
>> code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments
>> -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>>>
>>> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI,
>> completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>>>
>>> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this
>> means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>>>
>>> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>>>
>>> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying
>> things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those
>> large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>>>
>>> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>>>
>>> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>>>
>>> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1
>> on both keyboards.
>>>
>>> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
>> leaving out some pitches he included.
>>>
>>> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at
>> 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>>>
>>> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels
>> with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
>> synonymous in my mind.
>>>
>>> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>>>
>>> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
>> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
>> difficulty.
>>>
>>> Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> 43 tones of 87 #3
>>> 43
>>> !
>>> 82.75862
>>> 110.34483
>>> 124.13793
>>> 151.72414
>>> 165.51724
>>> 179.31034
>>> 206.89655
>>> 234.48276
>>> 262.06897
>>> 289.65517
>>> 317.24138
>>> 344.82759
>>> 358.62069
>>> 386.20690
>>> 413.79310
>>> 441.37931
>>> 455.17241
>>> 496.55172
>>> 551.72414
>>> 565.51724
>>> 579.31034
>>> 620.68966
>>> 634.48276
>>> 648.27586
>>> 703.44828
>>> 744.82759
>>> 758.62069
>>> 786.20690
>>> 813.79310
>>> 841.37931
>>> 855.17241
>>> 882.75862
>>> 910.34483
>>> 937.93103
>>> 965.51724
>>> 993.10345
>>> 1020.68966
>>> 1034.48276
>>> 1048.27586
>>> 1062.06897
>>> 1089.65517
>>> 1117.24138
>>> 1200.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe there's hope for me.
>>>
>>> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
>> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
>> tritones.
>>>
>>> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
>> scale.
>>>
>>> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy
>> to get oriented.
>>>
>>> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't
>> quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one,
>> while still preserving the basic layout.
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>>>
>>> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>>>
>>> It's symmetrical.
>>>
>>> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2,
>> 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>>>
>>> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
>> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
>> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>>>
>>> Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> 42 tones of 87 #5
>>> 42
>>> !
>>> 82.75900
>>> 110.34500
>>> 124.13800
>>> 137.93100
>>> 151.72400
>>> 179.31000
>>> 206.89700
>>> 234.48300
>>> 262.06900
>>> 289.65500
>>> 317.24100
>>> 344.82800
>>> 358.62100
>>> 386.20700
>>> 413.79300
>>> 441.37900
>>> 455.17200
>>> 496.55200
>>> 551.72400
>>> 579.31000
>>> 600.00000
>>> 620.69000
>>> 648.27600
>>> 703.44800
>>> 744.82700
>>> 758.62100
>>> 786.20700
>>> 813.79300
>>> 841.37900
>>> 855.17200
>>> 882.75900
>>> 910.34500
>>> 937.93100
>>> 965.51700
>>> 993.10300
>>> 1020.69000
>>> 1048.27600
>>> 1062.06900
>>> 1075.86200
>>> 1089.65500
>>> 1117.24100
>>> 1200.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
>>> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and
>> that I like this tuning I've posted.
>>>
>>> Longer version:
>>>
>>> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
>> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
>> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
>> would take *much* longer.
>>>
>>> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
>> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>>>
>>> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be
>> lost.
>>>
>>> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
>> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>>>
>>> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
>> hear, and the way I think.
>>>
>>> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi
>> keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important
>> as mathematical facts in this process.
>>>
>>> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
>> important as hi-tech solutions.
>>>
>>> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
>> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
>> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>>>
>>> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
>> normal piano.
>>>
>>> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones
>> in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
>> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
>> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
>> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
>> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>>>
>>> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
>> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>>>
>>> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
>> and being mistaken about what I want.
>>>
>>> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
>> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
>> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>>>
>>> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
>> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
>> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals
>> -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>>>
>>> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming
>> every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math
>> in that process.
>>>
>>> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
>> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
>> from JI for my own work.
>>>
>>> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
>> what I'm trying to do.
>>>
>>> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can
>> understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>>>
>>> The rest is personal.
>>>
>>> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive me. I like 87.
>>>
>>> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
>> has, the top section has.
>>>
>>> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>>>
>>> Should be a viable Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
>>> 87
>>> !
>>> 110.34500
>>> 151.72400
>>> 206.89700
>>> 234.48300
>>> 289.65500
>>> 317.24100
>>> 358.62100
>>> 386.20700
>>> 496.55200
>>> 620.69000
>>> 648.27600
>>> 703.44800
>>> 813.79300
>>> 882.75900
>>> 910.34500
>>> 937.93100
>>> 993.10300
>>> 1062.06900
>>> 1089.65500
>>> 1200.00000
>>> 1310.34500
>>> 1351.72400
>>> 1379.31000
>>> 1406.89700
>>> 1434.48300
>>> 1462.06900
>>> 1489.65500
>>> 1517.24100
>>> 1558.62100
>>> 1586.20700
>>> 1641.37900
>>> 1696.55200
>>> 1765.51700
>>> 1779.31000
>>> 1820.69000
>>> 1848.27600
>>> 1903.44800
>>> 1944.82800
>>> 2013.79300
>>> 2055.17200
>>> 2082.75900
>>> 2110.34500
>>> 2137.93100
>>> 2165.51700
>>> 2193.10300
>>> 2220.69000
>>> 2234.48300
>>> 2248.27600
>>> 2262.06900
>>> 2289.65500
>>> 2400.00000
>>> 2510.34500
>>> 2524.13800
>>> 2537.93100
>>> 2551.72400
>>> 2565.51700
>>> 2579.31000
>>> 2606.89700
>>> 2634.48300
>>> 2662.06900
>>> 2689.65500
>>> 2717.24100
>>> 2758.62100
>>> 2786.20700
>>> 2813.79300
>>> 2835.08
>>> 2896.55200
>>> 2951.72400
>>> 2963.38
>>> 2979.31000
>>> 3020.69000
>>> 3103.44800
>>> 3144.82800
>>> 3213.79300
>>> 3241.37900
>>> 3255.17200
>>> 3282.75900
>>> 3310.34500
>>> 3337.93100
>>> 3365.51700
>>> 3393.10300
>>> 3420.69000
>>> 3434.48300
>>> 3448.27600
>>> 3462.06900
>>> 3489.65500
>>> 3600.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>>>
>>> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and
>> 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>>>
>>> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
>> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>>>
>>> I can live without those differences.
>>>
>>> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps
>> introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>>>
>>> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>>>
>>> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at
>> my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>>>
>>> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Mike.
>>>
>>> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>>>
>>> Results to follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@gmail.com>
>>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
>>> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I think that your knowledge is great, and that by raising these issues and going back and forth a little, solutions are mentioned from which people can learn. 

It's good to be reminded about how other people like to work.

What we can't do is try to talk each other out of our into a way of working, if our goals are different. 

I've made my larger decisions about how I like to work.  Within those limitations, I'm willing to put up with endless drudgery, make charts on paper with a calculator, etc.  In other words, I was *much* happier with older sequencers that made fewer assumptions and tried to help the user much less.

Top-down assumptions are like fences.

By temperament, I'm a *little* like Nancarrow or Partch.  Happy to be obscure, working away from the center of things.  I emphasize a *little*.

I like the tech to be fairly simple, but to get a rich sound, with minimal top-down control.  Rather, bottom-up.

The way I like to work is not intended to set an example for others, except if I happen to find something of general interest.  Unlikely.

I make pieces that are represented *only* by a recording, and are not represented by a score, except as a paper score which serve as notes for me. The recording is the thing.  (There is a computer score, but it only serves the making of the sound.)

I'm only using Midi to the extent that I use a Midi keyboard controller, and I refuse to pay ten times (9 grand)for a generalized controller for what I'd pay for a standard 88-key keyboard, even if it would have conceptual benefits.  The reason is that a small company -- in addition to having to charge more --will go out of business, and I'll be left with an expensive paperweight.  So:  First principle:  Only off-the shelf gear.  

Second principle: I'm not interested in computer score generation *for my own work.* (Others are different.) Sequencing is an art in itself, and a separate technique from making a score.  I would never consider doing a piece for one set of particular sounds on a sequencer, then re-assigning the events of that piece to a different set of instruments.  My pieces are instrument-specific.

A computer score-making program (notation program) has its own learning curve and makes assumptions about how you want to work, particularly about rhythm. I'd have to hassle with microtonal notation, when a simple pidgin on paper is fine with me.

Learning Logic has been difficult enough for me.

Now, it might be that with additional investment in memory, some of the slowing down and glitching and other problems I'm already experiencing with a smallish orchestra (less than 60 tracks)in Logic would be solved.  So I could put up with more tracks.  But that would also be a trade-off.  I don't like Logic.

When it comes to scales/tunings, I like to stick with one complicated scale/tuning for years, rather than switching.  The scale/tuning, for me, has to be able to do everything that 12-tone can do *and a lot more*.  It has to do a lot more to be worth the trouble.

Now, it *might* have been the case that polyphonic pressure code in Logic actually mapped to pitch, providing me with a Caleb-style workaround:  An art-of-sequence-style bottom-up workaround, rather than a performer's workaround.

But it didn't work. 

In general, then, I agree that velocity control of volume is too precious to sacrifice, so my hopes today were dashed.  A lot of brief excitement, but in the end, nothing.

However, because the technique of assigning velocity to pitch works -- with no top-down-imposed limitations -- it's another little arrow in my quiver.

I did a little exercise with pitches bent to be an overtone series, and checked the accuracy by putting it through distortion, to hear that it didn't beat and that the sum-and-differences were all harmonic.

That's all.

________________________________
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo -- polyphonic MIDI detuning limitations

 
Caleb, sorry, but as a Logic user myself, I can never sacrifice velocity sensitivity when so much depends on it. We had talked about such options with Aaron Andrew Hunt prior to his design of Scordatura, and the best course anyone can suggest is to split the whole MIDI structure to ports and channels assigned in groups to specific instruments, whose pitches would then be bent per channel as the complexity of the tuning would require. If you are working with MIDI, there is no other workable route than to split a single instrument to several tracks each with its own dedicated set of notes detuned from 12-EDO - so that microtonal chords can happen without pitch traffic accidents.

Scordatura and Microsynth have further key triggers by which one can switch tunings on-the-fly during the flow of a score, and similarly alterate between any subsets of a master tuning.

I fail to see why you cannot simply introduce a middleman like Mus2 (which is phenomenally inexpensive compared to other big-market score editors) to transfer your hand-written score for a trustable multiple-channel MIDI export, which could then be easily and straightforwardly layered into Logic tracks.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> It seems that release velocity bends *all* the pitches, just like so-called polyphonic pressure. Oh well. Sigh.
>
> I just did a little test with velocity mapped to pitch. It's easy to use, and it sounded good.
>
> If you set it as close to the value of the velocity range (1-127) as you can (-126 cents) you can just think in cents, which makes for one less conversion chart. The only disadvantage is that you have to always set your instrument to some offset to allow for the effect of bending the pitches both ways, relatively. This, also, would work.
>
> But then you sacrifice velocity mapped to everything else, of course.
>
> Maybe for certain instruments this would be one way of working. After all, we lived with organs with no velocity-response for centuries. Also, you can still control the whole volume and filter level of the instrument, just not on individual notes.
>
> It may be that the Kontakt 5 sampler plug-in would work -- better than the exs24 sampler. I have a copy of Kontakt, so that's the next thing I'm looking into.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: James Fenn <thejamesfenn@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>
>
>
> Can the release velocity be mapped to fine pitch? Then you may be able to
> precede the NOTE_ONs with NOTE_OFFs with the pitch info.
>
> On 17 March 2013 16:49, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> This *might* work:
>>
>> velocity controls fine pitch (this works)
>>
>> next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make
>> sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked
>>
>> next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".
>>
>> I'm testing this now, it seems to work.
>>
>> There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of
>> people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the
>> control) but are too dumb or too lazy.
>>
>> caleb
>>
>> (p.s. dear Caleb, good luck. if this works, it could change your life)
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>
>>
>>
>> Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro. That's
>> what I'm talking about.
>>
>> I'm looking for polyphonic control of: fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND
>> volume.
>>
>> Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes,
>> without having a zillion tracks per instrument.
>>
>> It can't be done, it seems.
>>
>> It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24
>> sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.
>>
>> Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch. This works, and
>> is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to
>> polyphonically control volume. (The result is like a microtonal organ --
>> no touch.)
>>
>> I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with
>> a sequencer. Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go
>> back and forth.
>>
>> In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need
>> to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.
>>
>> Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>
>>
>> Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its
>> full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to
>> Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO.
>> And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and
>> MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output
>> using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns"
>> in 11-EDO.
>>
>> I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly
>> enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and
>> age.
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>>
>>> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>>>
>>> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>>>
>>> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic
>> supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work
>> polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the
>> notes!!!!!!*
>>>
>>> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to
>> live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned,
>> under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>>>
>>> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>>>
>>> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch
>> code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments
>> -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>>>
>>> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI,
>> completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>>>
>>> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this
>> means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>>>
>>> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>>>
>>> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying
>> things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those
>> large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>>>
>>> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>>>
>>> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>>>
>>> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1
>> on both keyboards.
>>>
>>> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
>> leaving out some pitches he included.
>>>
>>> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at
>> 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>>>
>>> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels
>> with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
>> synonymous in my mind.
>>>
>>> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>>>
>>> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
>> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
>> difficulty.
>>>
>>> Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> 43 tones of 87 #3
>>> 43
>>> !
>>> 82.75862
>>> 110.34483
>>> 124.13793
>>> 151.72414
>>> 165.51724
>>> 179.31034
>>> 206.89655
>>> 234.48276
>>> 262.06897
>>> 289.65517
>>> 317.24138
>>> 344.82759
>>> 358.62069
>>> 386.20690
>>> 413.79310
>>> 441.37931
>>> 455.17241
>>> 496.55172
>>> 551.72414
>>> 565.51724
>>> 579.31034
>>> 620.68966
>>> 634.48276
>>> 648.27586
>>> 703.44828
>>> 744.82759
>>> 758.62069
>>> 786.20690
>>> 813.79310
>>> 841.37931
>>> 855.17241
>>> 882.75862
>>> 910.34483
>>> 937.93103
>>> 965.51724
>>> 993.10345
>>> 1020.68966
>>> 1034.48276
>>> 1048.27586
>>> 1062.06897
>>> 1089.65517
>>> 1117.24138
>>> 1200.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe there's hope for me.
>>>
>>> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
>> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
>> tritones.
>>>
>>> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
>> scale.
>>>
>>> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy
>> to get oriented.
>>>
>>> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't
>> quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one,
>> while still preserving the basic layout.
>>>
>>> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>>>
>>> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>>>
>>> It's symmetrical.
>>>
>>> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2,
>> 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>>>
>>> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
>> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
>> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>>>
>>> Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> 42 tones of 87 #5
>>> 42
>>> !
>>> 82.75900
>>> 110.34500
>>> 124.13800
>>> 137.93100
>>> 151.72400
>>> 179.31000
>>> 206.89700
>>> 234.48300
>>> 262.06900
>>> 289.65500
>>> 317.24100
>>> 344.82800
>>> 358.62100
>>> 386.20700
>>> 413.79300
>>> 441.37900
>>> 455.17200
>>> 496.55200
>>> 551.72400
>>> 579.31000
>>> 600.00000
>>> 620.69000
>>> 648.27600
>>> 703.44800
>>> 744.82700
>>> 758.62100
>>> 786.20700
>>> 813.79300
>>> 841.37900
>>> 855.17200
>>> 882.75900
>>> 910.34500
>>> 937.93100
>>> 965.51700
>>> 993.10300
>>> 1020.69000
>>> 1048.27600
>>> 1062.06900
>>> 1075.86200
>>> 1089.65500
>>> 1117.24100
>>> 1200.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
>>> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and
>> that I like this tuning I've posted.
>>>
>>> Longer version:
>>>
>>> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
>> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
>> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
>> would take *much* longer.
>>>
>>> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
>> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>>>
>>> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be
>> lost.
>>>
>>> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
>> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>>>
>>> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
>> hear, and the way I think.
>>>
>>> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi
>> keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important
>> as mathematical facts in this process.
>>>
>>> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
>> important as hi-tech solutions.
>>>
>>> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
>> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
>> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>>>
>>> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
>> normal piano.
>>>
>>> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones
>> in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
>> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
>> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
>> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
>> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>>>
>>> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
>> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>>>
>>> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
>> and being mistaken about what I want.
>>>
>>> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
>> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
>> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>>>
>>> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
>> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
>> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals
>> -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>>>
>>> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming
>> every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math
>> in that process.
>>>
>>> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
>> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
>> from JI for my own work.
>>>
>>> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
>> what I'm trying to do.
>>>
>>> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can
>> understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>>>
>>> The rest is personal.
>>>
>>> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> Forgive me. I like 87.
>>>
>>> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
>> has, the top section has.
>>>
>>> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>>>
>>> Should be a viable Scala file:
>>>
>>> !
>>> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
>>> 87
>>> !
>>> 110.34500
>>> 151.72400
>>> 206.89700
>>> 234.48300
>>> 289.65500
>>> 317.24100
>>> 358.62100
>>> 386.20700
>>> 496.55200
>>> 620.69000
>>> 648.27600
>>> 703.44800
>>> 813.79300
>>> 882.75900
>>> 910.34500
>>> 937.93100
>>> 993.10300
>>> 1062.06900
>>> 1089.65500
>>> 1200.00000
>>> 1310.34500
>>> 1351.72400
>>> 1379.31000
>>> 1406.89700
>>> 1434.48300
>>> 1462.06900
>>> 1489.65500
>>> 1517.24100
>>> 1558.62100
>>> 1586.20700
>>> 1641.37900
>>> 1696.55200
>>> 1765.51700
>>> 1779.31000
>>> 1820.69000
>>> 1848.27600
>>> 1903.44800
>>> 1944.82800
>>> 2013.79300
>>> 2055.17200
>>> 2082.75900
>>> 2110.34500
>>> 2137.93100
>>> 2165.51700
>>> 2193.10300
>>> 2220.69000
>>> 2234.48300
>>> 2248.27600
>>> 2262.06900
>>> 2289.65500
>>> 2400.00000
>>> 2510.34500
>>> 2524.13800
>>> 2537.93100
>>> 2551.72400
>>> 2565.51700
>>> 2579.31000
>>> 2606.89700
>>> 2634.48300
>>> 2662.06900
>>> 2689.65500
>>> 2717.24100
>>> 2758.62100
>>> 2786.20700
>>> 2813.79300
>>> 2835.08
>>> 2896.55200
>>> 2951.72400
>>> 2963.38
>>> 2979.31000
>>> 3020.69000
>>> 3103.44800
>>> 3144.82800
>>> 3213.79300
>>> 3241.37900
>>> 3255.17200
>>> 3282.75900
>>> 3310.34500
>>> 3337.93100
>>> 3365.51700
>>> 3393.10300
>>> 3420.69000
>>> 3434.48300
>>> 3448.27600
>>> 3462.06900
>>> 3489.65500
>>> 3600.00000
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>>>
>>> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and
>> 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>>>
>>> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
>> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>>>
>>> I can live without those differences.
>>>
>>> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps
>> introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>>>
>>> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>>>
>>> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at
>> my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>>>
>>> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Mike.
>>>
>>> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>>>
>>> Results to follow.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@gmail.com>
>>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>> 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>>>
>>> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
>>> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Can you send me the Logic project file so that I can check how the detuning for the harmonic series you have accomplished works? Please send an e-mail to:

ozanyarman@...

I would go about to suggest that you use a series of 12-tone tunings from the master 87-EDO you chose, opening a Logic session for each one, and mixing them down in a non-trivial way.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Mar 18, 2013, at 1:56 AM, Caleb Morgan wrote:

> I think that your knowledge is great, and that by raising these issues and going back and forth a little, solutions are mentioned from which people can learn.
>
> It's good to be reminded about how other people like to work.
>
> What we can't do is try to talk each other out of our into a way of working, if our goals are different.
>
> I've made my larger decisions about how I like to work. Within those limitations, I'm willing to put up with endless drudgery, make charts on paper with a calculator, etc. In other words, I was *much* happier with older sequencers that made fewer assumptions and tried to help the user much less.
>
> Top-down assumptions are like fences.
>
> By temperament, I'm a *little* like Nancarrow or Partch. Happy to be obscure, working away from the center of things. I emphasize a *little*.
>
> I like the tech to be fairly simple, but to get a rich sound, with minimal top-down control. Rather, bottom-up.
>
> The way I like to work is not intended to set an example for others, except if I happen to find something of general interest. Unlikely.
>
>
>
> I make pieces that are represented *only* by a recording, and are not represented by a score, except as a paper score which serve as notes for me. The recording is the thing. (There is a computer score, but it only serves the making of the sound.)
>
> I'm only using Midi to the extent that I use a Midi keyboard controller, and I refuse to pay ten times (9 grand)for a generalized controller for what I'd pay for a standard 88-key keyboard, even if it would have conceptual benefits. The reason is that a small company -- in addition to having to charge more --will go out of business, and I'll be left with an expensive paperweight. So: First principle: Only off-the shelf gear.
>
> Second principle: I'm not interested in computer score generation *for my own work.* (Others are different.) Sequencing is an art in itself, and a separate technique from making a score. I would never consider doing a piece for one set of particular sounds on a sequencer, then re-assigning the events of that piece to a different set of instruments. My pieces are instrument-specific.
>
> A computer score-making program (notation program) has its own learning curve and makes assumptions about how you want to work, particularly about rhythm. I'd have to hassle with microtonal notation, when a simple pidgin on paper is fine with me.
>
> Learning Logic has been difficult enough for me.
>
> Now, it might be that with additional investment in memory, some of the slowing down and glitching and other problems I'm already experiencing with a smallish orchestra (less than 60 tracks)in Logic would be solved. So I could put up with more tracks. But that would also be a trade-off. I don't like Logic.
>
> When it comes to scales/tunings, I like to stick with one complicated scale/tuning for years, rather than switching. The scale/tuning, for me, has to be able to do everything that 12-tone can do *and a lot more*. It has to do a lot more to be worth the trouble.
>
> Now, it *might* have been the case that polyphonic pressure code in Logic actually mapped to pitch, providing me with a Caleb-style workaround: An art-of-sequence-style bottom-up workaround, rather than a performer's workaround.
>
> But it didn't work.
>
> In general, then, I agree that velocity control of volume is too precious to sacrifice, so my hopes today were dashed. A lot of brief excitement, but in the end, nothing.
>
> However, because the technique of assigning velocity to pitch works -- with no top-down-imposed limitations -- it's another little arrow in my quiver.
>
> I did a little exercise with pitches bent to be an overtone series, and checked the accuracy by putting it through distortion, to hear that it didn't beat and that the sum-and-differences were all harmonic.
>
> That's all.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo -- polyphonic MIDI detuning limitations
>
>
>
> Caleb, sorry, but as a Logic user myself, I can never sacrifice velocity sensitivity when so much depends on it. We had talked about such options with Aaron Andrew Hunt prior to his design of Scordatura, and the best course anyone can suggest is to split the whole MIDI structure to ports and channels assigned in groups to specific instruments, whose pitches would then be bent per channel as the complexity of the tuning would require. If you are working with MIDI, there is no other workable route than to split a single instrument to several tracks each with its own dedicated set of notes detuned from 12-EDO - so that microtonal chords can happen without pitch traffic accidents.
>
> Scordatura and Microsynth have further key triggers by which one can switch tunings on-the-fly during the flow of a score, and similarly alterate between any subsets of a master tuning.
>
> I fail to see why you cannot simply introduce a middleman like Mus2 (which is phenomenally inexpensive compared to other big-market score editors) to transfer your hand-written score for a trustable multiple-channel MIDI export, which could then be easily and straightforwardly layered into Logic tracks.
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Mar 17, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>
>> It seems that release velocity bends *all* the pitches, just like so-called polyphonic pressure. Oh well. Sigh.
>>
>> I just did a little test with velocity mapped to pitch. It's easy to use, and it sounded good.
>>
>> If you set it as close to the value of the velocity range (1-127) as you can (-126 cents) you can just think in cents, which makes for one less conversion chart. The only disadvantage is that you have to always set your instrument to some offset to allow for the effect of bending the pitches both ways, relatively. This, also, would work.
>>
>> But then you sacrifice velocity mapped to everything else, of course.
>>
>> Maybe for certain instruments this would be one way of working. After all, we lived with organs with no velocity-response for centuries. Also, you can still control the whole volume and filter level of the instrument, just not on individual notes.
>>
>> It may be that the Kontakt 5 sampler plug-in would work -- better than the exs24 sampler. I have a copy of Kontakt, so that's the next thing I'm looking into.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: James Fenn <thejamesfenn@...m>
>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 2:49 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>
>>
>>
>> Can the release velocity be mapped to fine pitch? Then you may be able to
>> precede the NOTE_ONs with NOTE_OFFs with the pitch info.
>>
>> On 17 March 2013 16:49, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> This *might* work:
>>>
>>> velocity controls fine pitch (this works)
>>>
>>> next, go to Preferences in the EXS24 instrument (under Options!!) and make
>>> sure "Ignore release Velocity" is *not* checked
>>>
>>> next in the mod matrix, map release velocity to "Relative Volume".
>>>
>>> I'm testing this now, it seems to work.
>>>
>>> There really isn't anyone to ask about this stuff -- it's the subset of
>>> people who should be using C-sound or something (because they want the
>>> control) but are too dumb or too lazy.
>>>
>>> caleb
>>>
>>> (p.s. dear Caleb, good luck. if this works, it could change your life)
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:52 AM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, just looking for simple workarounds specific to Logic Pro. That's
>>> what I'm talking about.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for polyphonic control of: fine (polyphonic) pitch-bend AND
>>> volume.
>>>
>>> Any pitch at any time, no staff-notation, individual control of volumes,
>>> without having a zillion tracks per instrument.
>>>
>>> It can't be done, it seems.
>>>
>>> It seemed, based on what *should* be true, that I could tweak the EXS24
>>> sampler instruments and get the results I wanted.
>>>
>>> Now, another workaround is to map key velocity to pitch. This works, and
>>> is the kind of solution I'm looking for. But then I don't have a way to
>>> polyphonically control volume. (The result is like a microtonal organ --
>>> no touch.)
>>>
>>> I don't work with software score editors, I like to work on paper and with
>>> a sequencer. Write the notes on paper, work by ear on the sequencer. Go
>>> back and forth.
>>>
>>> In other words, I was all excited because I thought I could do what I need
>>> to do with the tools I have, without purchasing something new.
>>>
>>> Foiled again -- unless I'm wrong.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:05 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you compose in raw staffs using Mus2 version 2 with its
>>> full-blown microtonal potential, and then export your piece as MIDI to
>>> Logic? This is what I did with my "Darreg's Motley" Arrangement in 19-EDO.
>>> And the score looks beautiful to boot. There is also Scordatura and
>>> MicroSynth by H-Pi to consider, which can twist a Sibelius or Finale output
>>> using retuned soundfonts. That is what I did too with my "Icicle Caverns"
>>> in 11-EDO.
>>>
>>> I don't think the microtonal community of theorists and composers nearly
>>> enough appreciates the extraordinary tools at our disposal in this day and
>>> age.
>>>
>>> Oz.
>>>
>>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Caleb Morgan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gosh Darn It! It doesn't work!! Foile again!
>>>>
>>>> It looks like my optimism was unfounded!
>>>>
>>>> It says it should work in the manual, and the sequencer in Logic
>>> supports it, but **it seems that polyphonic aftertouch doesn't work
>>> polyphonically -- it acts just like channel pressure, it bends all the
>>> notes!!!!!!*
>>>>
>>>> Logic, you never fail to stymie me, disappoint me, thwart me, fail to
>>> live up to expectations. The simple things are hard to do. Overdesigned,
>>> under-tested. Bells and whistles galore.
>>>>
>>>> Logic, you are my sworn enemy.
>>>>
>>>> (And by Logic, I don't mean logic.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:24 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today I learned -- after all this time -- that polyphonic aftertouch
>>> code can be mapped to the fine-tuning of Logic's ESX24 sampler instruments
>>> -- the meat & potato instruments of Logic.
>>>>
>>>> This means completely accurate no-limit adaptive no-hierachy JI,
>>> completely changeable at any moment without bother.
>>>>
>>>> All the other work and all the other tunings are still useful, but this
>>> means I don't have to be restricted any more.
>>>>
>>>> 19-limit JI to 10EDO to 12EDO in the same piece without workarounds? Yep.
>>>>
>>>> However, I wouldn't have the confidence to try this without also trying
>>> things out by ear with larger and smaller keyboard tunings. So all those
>>> large and small fixed scales were useful to study, too.
>>>>
>>>> There's no one thing that's the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Before today, I didn't know this was possible.
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:09 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this is the framework I'm going with.
>>>>
>>>> Two keyboards with 88 keys, 4 octaves to hand, total, with an upper 4/1
>>> on both keyboards.
>>>>
>>>> 43 pitches of 87 edo. Same as Partch, but I squeeze in the 13-limit by
>>> leaving out some pitches he included.
>>>>
>>>> A pair of "minor seconds" or major 7ths -- one at 15/8, the other at
>>> 82.75 cents to make a decent 4th (4/3) with 7/5, or 5th (3/2) with 10/7.
>>>>
>>>> Each key labeled with the closest ratio, and I'm going to add labels
>>> with number of steps ("srutis") in 87 edo, until the two numbers become
>>> synonymous in my mind.
>>>>
>>>> Heavy reliance on a pair of sustain pedals at my feet.
>>>>
>>>> I think I've gotten rid of all the eccentricities except the uneven
>>> fingering patterns. There always has to be a compromise, some extra
>>> difficulty.
>>>>
>>>> Scala file:
>>>>
>>>> !
>>>> 43 tones of 87 #3
>>>> 43
>>>> !
>>>> 82.75862
>>>> 110.34483
>>>> 124.13793
>>>> 151.72414
>>>> 165.51724
>>>> 179.31034
>>>> 206.89655
>>>> 234.48276
>>>> 262.06897
>>>> 289.65517
>>>> 317.24138
>>>> 344.82759
>>>> 358.62069
>>>> 386.20690
>>>> 413.79310
>>>> 441.37931
>>>> 455.17241
>>>> 496.55172
>>>> 551.72414
>>>> 565.51724
>>>> 579.31034
>>>> 620.68966
>>>> 634.48276
>>>> 648.27586
>>>> 703.44828
>>>> 744.82759
>>>> 758.62069
>>>> 786.20690
>>>> 813.79310
>>>> 841.37931
>>>> 855.17241
>>>> 882.75862
>>>> 910.34483
>>>> 937.93103
>>>> 965.51724
>>>> 993.10345
>>>> 1020.68966
>>>> 1034.48276
>>>> 1048.27586
>>>> 1062.06897
>>>> 1089.65517
>>>> 1117.24138
>>>> 1200.00000
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 3:50 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there's hope for me.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a tuning that makes some concession to easy memorization on the
>>> keyboard, because it has 42 tones. That means the patterns repeat in
>>> tritones.
>>>>
>>>> You can play tritones starting on 1/1 and get a somewhat nice-sounding
>>> scale.
>>>>
>>>> The major landmarks of 1/1 and 3/2 fall on those tritones, so it's easy
>>> to get oriented.
>>>>
>>>> However, it doesn't have entirely consistent fingering -- I haven't
>>> quite figured out how to do that and get good 13 ratios with this one,
>>> while still preserving the basic layout.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there's a tweak that would accomplish that.
>>>>
>>>> 87 Edo, with a 600 cents tritone added, so technically 174 EDO.
>>>>
>>>> It's symmetrical.
>>>>
>>>> Srutis Difference: 12, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2,
>>> 6, 8, 4, 3, 3, 4, 8, 6, 2, 4, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 12
>>>>
>>>> Srutis Absolute: 0, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46, 50, 52,
>>> 56, 60, 64, 66, 72, 80, 84, 87, 90, 94, 102, 108, 110, 114, 118, 122, 124,
>>> 128, 132, 136, 140, 144, 148, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 174
>>>>
>>>> Scala file:
>>>>
>>>> !
>>>> 42 tones of 87 #5
>>>> 42
>>>> !
>>>> 82.75900
>>>> 110.34500
>>>> 124.13800
>>>> 137.93100
>>>> 151.72400
>>>> 179.31000
>>>> 206.89700
>>>> 234.48300
>>>> 262.06900
>>>> 289.65500
>>>> 317.24100
>>>> 344.82800
>>>> 358.62100
>>>> 386.20700
>>>> 413.79300
>>>> 441.37900
>>>> 455.17200
>>>> 496.55200
>>>> 551.72400
>>>> 579.31000
>>>> 600.00000
>>>> 620.69000
>>>> 648.27600
>>>> 703.44800
>>>> 744.82700
>>>> 758.62100
>>>> 786.20700
>>>> 813.79300
>>>> 841.37900
>>>> 855.17200
>>>> 882.75900
>>>> 910.34500
>>>> 937.93100
>>>> 965.51700
>>>> 993.10300
>>>> 1020.69000
>>>> 1048.27600
>>>> 1062.06900
>>>> 1075.86200
>>>> 1089.65500
>>>> 1117.24100
>>>> 1200.00000
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:20 PM
>>>> Subject: [MMM] Re: Goin' with a subset of 87edo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So far, so good. To summarize a long post: I want to say thanks, and
>>> that I like this tuning I've posted.
>>>>
>>>> Longer version:
>>>>
>>>> I feel I should say something personal: I'm grateful for all the work
>>> that's been done on equal temperaments, etc. in the xenharmonic (microtonal
>>> wiki). Without that work, my attempts at finding my own personal solutions
>>> would take *much* longer.
>>>>
>>>> Having a page one can go to that confirms that 87edo is the smallest edo
>>> that does a consistent 13-limit is extremely helpful.
>>>>
>>>> Also, without Lil' Miss Scale Oven and an interval calculator, I'd be
>>> lost.
>>>>
>>>> As for the tuning I posted today, it's holding up so far. I'm almost
>>> certain that something very close to this is what I really want.
>>>>
>>>> This seems (so far) to be the closest practical solution given the way I
>>> hear, and the way I think.
>>>>
>>>> Purely contingent facts -- like the fact that mass-produced Midi
>>> keyboard controllers are made with no more than 88 keys -- are as important
>>> as mathematical facts in this process.
>>>>
>>>> Dumb, low-tech solutions like labeling with a strip of tape are as
>>> important as hi-tech solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Labeling the keys with a row of tape above them, marked with the ratios,
>>> is essential. Without that, the scale is horrible to play. With it, it's
>>> pretty easy, if one associates a ratio with a sound, as I do.
>>>>
>>>> Three copies of PianoTeq in Logic, and you have the entire range of a
>>> normal piano.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, it's difficult to type in the value of +-12 semitones
>>> in the little PianoTeq window. But once that little annoying task is
>>> accomplished, one only has to refer to a conversion chart. To pitch-bend
>>> the entire tuning up a 3/2 approximation in Logic in 87edo, with an
>>> instrument set to +-12, you enter the value 4802. I've tested this with
>>> hi-pitched sine waves, and the results are beat-free. Dead on.
>>>>
>>>> I really *do* want to hear a very close approximation of JI with the
>>> pitches I feel I need. That is no affectation or delusion.
>>>>
>>>> There's a difference between being mathematically naive -- which I am --
>>> and being mistaken about what I want.
>>>>
>>>> I dislike calling this "super particular". Given instruments with
>>> harmonic-series partials, this is what I want to hear in my own music.
>>> Also, the ability to reproduce familiar harmonies.
>>>>
>>>> It's not that I like hearing lots of small melodic intervals. Far from
>>> it. The effect I like is the sound of one tuning changing into another --
>>> I'd call it "bending" or "morphing". And, also, the sound of some intervals
>>> -- or, better word, simultaneities -- rendered nearly exactly.
>>>>
>>>> Each of us has to pursue whatever sounds right to us, and overcoming
>>> every little practical obstacle is as important as understanding the math
>>> in that process.
>>>>
>>>> Others may pursue other approaches -- such as scales bearing no
>>> resemblance to JI -- but I really like the sound of something not too far
>>> from JI for my own work.
>>>>
>>>> Something based on something like 87edo seems to be the way to go, for
>>> what I'm trying to do.
>>>>
>>>> If someone like Mike says something fairly concrete that I can
>>> understand, such as "Try 46edo" -- then I can check that out.
>>>>
>>>> The rest is personal.
>>>>
>>>> Caleb (the thin-skinned one.)
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 7:15 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>>> 90/91 comma?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Forgive me. I like 87.
>>>>
>>>> This version has 3 or 4 fixes. (Nearly) everything that the mid-section
>>> has, the top section has.
>>>>
>>>> Just re-labelled my keyboard, gonna test this out for a long time, today.
>>>>
>>>> Should be a viable Scala file:
>>>>
>>>> !
>>>> GuberMensch 3.0 87#4 9/7
>>>> 87
>>>> !
>>>> 110.34500
>>>> 151.72400
>>>> 206.89700
>>>> 234.48300
>>>> 289.65500
>>>> 317.24100
>>>> 358.62100
>>>> 386.20700
>>>> 496.55200
>>>> 620.69000
>>>> 648.27600
>>>> 703.44800
>>>> 813.79300
>>>> 882.75900
>>>> 910.34500
>>>> 937.93100
>>>> 993.10300
>>>> 1062.06900
>>>> 1089.65500
>>>> 1200.00000
>>>> 1310.34500
>>>> 1351.72400
>>>> 1379.31000
>>>> 1406.89700
>>>> 1434.48300
>>>> 1462.06900
>>>> 1489.65500
>>>> 1517.24100
>>>> 1558.62100
>>>> 1586.20700
>>>> 1641.37900
>>>> 1696.55200
>>>> 1765.51700
>>>> 1779.31000
>>>> 1820.69000
>>>> 1848.27600
>>>> 1903.44800
>>>> 1944.82800
>>>> 2013.79300
>>>> 2055.17200
>>>> 2082.75900
>>>> 2110.34500
>>>> 2137.93100
>>>> 2165.51700
>>>> 2193.10300
>>>> 2220.69000
>>>> 2234.48300
>>>> 2248.27600
>>>> 2262.06900
>>>> 2289.65500
>>>> 2400.00000
>>>> 2510.34500
>>>> 2524.13800
>>>> 2537.93100
>>>> 2551.72400
>>>> 2565.51700
>>>> 2579.31000
>>>> 2606.89700
>>>> 2634.48300
>>>> 2662.06900
>>>> 2689.65500
>>>> 2717.24100
>>>> 2758.62100
>>>> 2786.20700
>>>> 2813.79300
>>>> 2835.08
>>>> 2896.55200
>>>> 2951.72400
>>>> 2963.38
>>>> 2979.31000
>>>> 3020.69000
>>>> 3103.44800
>>>> 3144.82800
>>>> 3213.79300
>>>> 3241.37900
>>>> 3255.17200
>>>> 3282.75900
>>>> 3310.34500
>>>> 3337.93100
>>>> 3365.51700
>>>> 3393.10300
>>>> 3420.69000
>>>> 3434.48300
>>>> 3448.27600
>>>> 3462.06900
>>>> 3489.65500
>>>> 3600.00000
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Caleb Morgan calebmrgn@...>
>>>> To: "MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.comMakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:56 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>>> 90/91 comma?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, to my surprise, 46 is looking pretty good!
>>>>
>>>> It gets rid of the difference between 18/13 and 7/5. Also 20/11 and
>>> 11/6. also 14/13 and 13/12. Also 12/11 and 11/10. Also 81/16 and 14/11.
>>>>
>>>> These are not distinctions that are dear to me, with the possible
>>> exception of 12/11 and 11/10.
>>>>
>>>> I can live without those differences.
>>>>
>>>> With the 5 extra keys I gain out of the entire 88, I can perhaps
>>> introduce new pitches and fix some of the weirdness of this setup.
>>>>
>>>> The 5th at 704.348 is copacetic.
>>>>
>>>> The 5/4 approximation is a little wide -- not so sweet any more, but at
>>> my age, I'm not so sweet, either.
>>>>
>>>> It will still allow me to do a "morphing" effect when chords change.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Mike.
>>>>
>>>> I'll now spend some serious time re-vamping this setup in 46.
>>>>
>>>> Results to follow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Mike Battaglia battaglia01@...>
>>>> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2013 5:00 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMM] Help for small tweaks to a tuning: ?Tempering out
>>> 90/91 comma?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:25 AM, calebmrgn calebmrgn@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What EDOs temper out the 90/91 comma?
>>>>
>>>> I strongly suggest looking at 46-EDO, which is accurate enough for me
>>>> to be happy and which also tempers out 91/90.
>>>>
>>>> -Mike
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>