For those interested in analog synthesis/microtuning

From the modular synth company MOTM :

http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html

Look for the MOTM-650 4-Channel MIDI-CV converter with MIDI microtuning
standard

Damn , I was expecting this for years!!!

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

>

the term "MIDI microtuning standard" is a bit ambiguous since the standard is beyond what anyone
uses.
Just what does this mean in hard divisions of the octave

>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:28:15 +0200
> From: Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@...>
> Subject: For those interested in analog synthesis/microtuning
>
> From the modular synth company MOTM :
>
> http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html
>
> Look for the MOTM-650 4-Channel MIDI-CV converter with MIDI microtuning
> standard
>
> Damn , I was expecting this for years!!!
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

Hello
To tell you the truth I don't know much about MIDI . I am an analog sound fan , so I have avoided digital MIDI synthesizers.
But if this module makes full microtuning possible for analog synths I will accept it!
MOTM has relationships with Robert Rich an electronic music/microtonalist (I am not familiar with his work) so I expect them to
have considered a microtanalist technical advice.

What do you mean by hard divisions of the octave?
I hope it won't be just 12 tone with control on every note.

On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Kraig Grady wrote:

>>
>
> the term "MIDI microtuning standard" is a bit ambiguous since the > standard is beyond what anyone
> uses.
> Just what does this mean in hard divisions of the octave
>
>>
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:28:15 +0200
>> From: Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@...>
>> Subject: For those interested in analog synthesis/microtuning
>>
>> From the modular synth company MOTM :
>>
>> http://www.synthtech.com/new_stuff.html
>>
>> Look for the MOTM-650 4-Channel MIDI-CV converter with MIDI >> microtuning
>> standard
>>
>> Damn , I was expecting this for years!!!
>>
>>
>
> -- -Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
> http://www.anaphoria.com
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST
>
>
> [MMM info]------------------------------------------------------
> More MMM music files are at http://www.microtonal.org/music.html
> ------------------------------------------------------[MMM info]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>
> From: Alexandros Papadopoulos <Alexmoog@...>
> Subject: Re: For those interested in analog synthesis/microtuning

Hello Alexandros!
The midi standard which can go quite high is cut off at it believe 768 divisions of the octave.
this is a very unfortuneate number because if you attempt to get just 5 3/2 you are already one unit
off. Thi tuning causes all type of beating that are a result of this tuning and not the desired
ratios which makes it , at least for me, useless. Robert is a find composer and i have known him
since he first played in LA 20 years ago. this standard though was a mistake.

>
>
> Hello
> To tell you the truth I don't know much about MIDI . I am an analog
> sound fan , so I have avoided digital MIDI synthesizers.
> But if this module makes full microtuning possible for analog synths I
> will accept it!
> MOTM has relationships with Robert Rich an electronic
> music/microtonalist (I am not familiar with his work) so I expect them
> to
> have considered a microtanalist technical advice.
>
> What do you mean by hard divisions of the octave?
> I hope it won't be just 12 tone with control on every note.
>
>

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM 8-9PM PST

Kraig wrote...
>The midi standard which can go quite high is cut off at it
>believe 768 divisions of the octave.

The MTS may allow different levels of implementation by
synth manufacturers, as most good standards do. Some of
the Yamaha stuff was limited to a resolution of 768-et
(TX81Z IIRC), but other synths may be less or more accurate.

Actually, I read the MTS once, and don't even remember it
discussing output resolution. It's a protocol for managing
tuning banks over sysex. Jeff L., is that right?

>this standard though was a mistake.

Kraig, look into it a little more before writing it off.

-Carl

From the MTS...

"The frequency resolution of the standard should be stringent
enough to satisfy most demands of music and experimentation.
The standard provides resolution somewhat finer than one-
hundredth of a cent. Instruments may support the standard
without necessarily providing this resolution in their hardware;
the standard simply permits the transfer of tuning data at any
resolution up to this limit."

-Carl

Does anyone know what is the smallest detectible division of pitch by the
human ear?

Thanks,

Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Lumma <clumma@...> [mailto:clumma@...]
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 1:48 PM
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MMM] Re: For those interested in analog synthesis/microtuning

Kraig wrote...
>The midi standard which can go quite high is cut off at it
>believe 768 divisions of the octave.

The MTS may allow different levels of implementation by
synth manufacturers, as most good standards do. Some of
the Yamaha stuff was limited to a resolution of 768-et
(TX81Z IIRC), but other synths may be less or more accurate.

Actually, I read the MTS once, and don't even remember it
discussing output resolution. It's a protocol for managing
tuning banks over sysex. Jeff L., is that right?

>this standard though was a mistake.

Kraig, look into it a little more before writing it off.

-Carl

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

[MMM info]------------------------------------------------------
More MMM music files are at http://www.microtonal.org/music.html
------------------------------------------------------[MMM info]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

Try this link from my web site:

http://www.microtonalsynthesis.com/MIDItuning.html

Finest resolution under the MIDI tuning standard is 1/16384 semitone =
100/16384 cents = .0061 cents.

John Loffink
jloffink@...

> Kraig wrote...
> >The midi standard which can go quite high is cut off at it
> >believe 768 divisions of the octave.
>
> The MTS may allow different levels of implementation by
> synth manufacturers, as most good standards do. Some of
> the Yamaha stuff was limited to a resolution of 768-et
> (TX81Z IIRC), but other synths may be less or more accurate.
>
> Actually, I read the MTS once, and don't even remember it
> discussing output resolution. It's a protocol for managing
> tuning banks over sysex. Jeff L., is that right?
>
> >this standard though was a mistake.
>
> Kraig, look into it a little more before writing it off.
>
> -Carl
>

>Does anyone know what is the smallest detectible division
>of pitch by the human ear?

That depends greatly on the kind of timbre, the conditions
under which it is heard, and the kind of judgements you
expect people to make. For healthy listeners, the "just
noticeable difference" (which is a melodic thing) is often
quoted at being around 2 cents. But it's very dangerous
to quote such a figure without rigorously describing the
conditions used to arrive at it.

In general, I think the musical importance of such inquiries
is about nil.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...> wrote:
> Try this link from my web site:
>
> http://www.microtonalsynthesis.com/MIDItuning.html
>
> Finest resolution under the MIDI tuning standard is 1/16384 semitone =
> 100/16384 cents = .0061 cents.

Which is 1/4 cawapu, which seems to be the de facto standard.

>Does anyone know what is the smallest detectible division
>of pitch by the human ear?

That depends greatly on the kind of timbre, the conditions
under which it is heard, and the kind of judgements you
expect people to make. For healthy listeners, the "just
noticeable difference" (which is a melodic thing) is often
quoted at being around 2 cents. But it's very dangerous
to quote such a figure without rigorously describing the
conditions used to arrive at it.

In general, I think the musical importance of such inquiries
is about nil.

-Carl

Do you not feel that microtonal music can be melodic? If a person is unable
to detect a difference then as far as the listener is concerned there is no
change in pitch.

Paul

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

> In general, I think the musical importance of such inquiries
> is about nil.
>
> -Carl
>
> Do you not feel that microtonal music can be melodic? If a
> person is unable to detect a difference then as far as the
> listener is concerned there is no change in pitch.

I do feel it can be melodic. But no single figure will tell
you in advance how a certain melody will sound regarding
very small changes. You have to try it in the context you
plan to use it.

-Carl

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
<clumma@y...> wrote:
> >Does anyone know what is the smallest detectible division
> >of pitch by the human ear?
>
> That depends greatly on the kind of timbre, the conditions
> under which it is heard, and the kind of judgements you
> expect people to make. For healthy listeners, the "just
> noticeable difference" (which is a melodic thing)

not necessarily. there is a melodic jnd, and a harmonic jnd
(actually, there are many types of jnd, depending on the conditions
of comparison).

> is often
> quoted at being around 2 cents.

never seen that figure. the melodic jnd varies over the frequency
range, but never dips below 5-6 cents. the harmonic jnd is far
smaller, since one can easily note the rate of beating changing.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "John Loffink" <jloffink@a...>

/makemicromusic/topicId_4148.html#4169

wrote:
> Try this link from my web site:
>
> http://www.microtonalsynthesis.com/MIDItuning.html
>
> Finest resolution under the MIDI tuning standard is 1/16384
semitone =
> 100/16384 cents = .0061 cents.
>
> John Loffink
> jloffink@a...
>

***Yes, we shouldn't forget Joe Monzo's famous "Midipu..."

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/midipu.htm

JP

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

/makemicromusic/topicId_4148.html#4179

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
> <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >Does anyone know what is the smallest detectible division
> > >of pitch by the human ear?
> >
> > That depends greatly on the kind of timbre, the conditions
> > under which it is heard, and the kind of judgements you
> > expect people to make. For healthy listeners, the "just
> > noticeable difference" (which is a melodic thing)
>
> not necessarily. there is a melodic jnd, and a harmonic jnd
> (actually, there are many types of jnd, depending on the conditions
> of comparison).
>
> > is often
> > quoted at being around 2 cents.
>
> never seen that figure. the melodic jnd varies over the frequency
> range, but never dips below 5-6 cents. the harmonic jnd is far
> smaller, since one can easily note the rate of beating changing.

***Thanks, Paul, for straightening this out. I *thought* that's
about what we had discussed before... any more on "main, biggie,
list..."

Joseph

>>>is often quoted at being around 2 cents.
>>
>>never seen that figure. the melodic jnd varies over the
>>frequency range, but never dips below 5-6 cents. the harmonic
>>jnd is far smaller, since one can easily note the rate of
>>beating changing.
>
>***Thanks, Paul, for straightening this out. I *thought* that's
>about what we had discussed before... any more on "main, biggie,
>list..."

I have seen the 2 cent melodic figure in at least two places.
One was my physics class, where the class was tested from
test tones on open-reel tape. Another was in print... Carl
Seashore?

-Carl

I have just gotten a note from an organist friend?

> I am interested in buying a Thermin for my birthday (Feb. 4:
> I'll be 33). There is a website (www.moogmusic.com) which
> advertize a $450 Etherwave Theramin. Even though the Ethervox
> MIDI Theremin is ultimately of interest, it runs about $5,000. I
> should probably strive with the former option and familiarize
> myself with the basics.

does anybody know what the etherwave can and cannot do? (answer off-
list)

judy

--
http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/index.html

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, judithconrad@m... wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_4148.html#4198

> I have just gotten a note from an organist friend?
>
> > I am interested in buying a Thermin for my birthday (Feb. 4:
> > I'll be 33). There is a website (www.moogmusic.com) which
> > advertize a $450 Etherwave Theramin. Even though the Ethervox
> > MIDI Theremin is ultimately of interest, it runs about $5,000. I
> > should probably strive with the former option and familiarize
> > myself with the basics.
>
> does anybody know what the etherwave can and cannot do? (answer off-
> list)
>
> judy
>
> --
> http://home.mindspring.com/~judithconrad/index.html

***I don't know why this post is considered off topic, since the
theremin is one of the *most* microtonal of *all* instruments.

Bob Moog's instruments are not midi, to my knowledge, and I presume
that has something to do with the price differential. You can
*build* one also for about $100 less, but I hear it's a challenge...

Joseph Pehrson

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma <clumma@y...>"
<clumma@y...> wrote:
> >>>is often quoted at being around 2 cents.
> >>
> >>never seen that figure. the melodic jnd varies over the
> >>frequency range, but never dips below 5-6 cents. the harmonic
> >>jnd is far smaller, since one can easily note the rate of
> >>beating changing.
> >
> >***Thanks, Paul, for straightening this out. I *thought* that's
> >about what we had discussed before... any more on "main, biggie,
> >list..."
>
> I have seen the 2 cent melodic figure in at least two places.
> One was my physics class, where the class was tested from
> test tones on open-reel tape. Another was in print... Carl
> Seashore?
>
> -Carl

go to the library and read up on some psychoacoustics from the '60s
or newer.