Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Announcing xenharmony.org

This is the official announcement that my web site

http://www.xenharmony.org

is open for business. There is some theory discussion there, and will
be more, but it is also a large and growing collection of retuned
classical repertoire, as ogg files. If you, like me, have been having
trouble dealing with 12-et music because it sounds too far out of
tune, this might be just what you need. I think the best way to
listen to these files is to download them, convert them to wav
files, and burn a CD.

So far we have:

Grail:

Mahler Symphony #1
Schubert Symphony #8

(These both seriously rock)

Copland Symphony #3, first movement

Eight Minutes of Mystery Music

Beethoven piano sonatas 27,29,30,31,32
(These are good!)

Bifrost:

Joe Monzo's Mahler #7, first movement

Tännhäuser Overture

Meantone:

Mozart Piano Sonata K. 331

Sullivan "Song to Sing"

Handel "Raging Flames"

Schumann "Foreign Lands and People"

Couperin "Le Tic-Toc Choc"
(people love this one)

Cauldron:

Brahms Symphony #2

Ratwolf:

Beethoven Symphony #1

Stars and Stripes Forever

Wilwolf:

Midsummer Night's Dream Overture

Coming soon are Bruckner, Symphony #7, Mozart, Piano concertos 15 and
22, Bach, Mass in b minor

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

X. J. Scott wrote:

> I do offer sincere best wishes to those of you who are trying to maintain
> the dreams of beautiful unique music that are possible only through the raw
> primal power of True Xenharmony.

Wow, has Xenharmony reached cult status? True Believers may be more concerned at not being able to find the Xenharmonic Bulletins online. This is because the filenames are in lower case, but the links in upper case. As the website is running from a Linux box, case does matter! So if the webmaster is about (it might be Monzo, or at least Monzo will know who) get this fixed!

Anyway, number 2

http://sonic-arts.org/darreg/xhb2.htm

includes the liberal paragraph "It should also be realized that the contracted semitones used by violinists et al. in playing their brilliant sharpened leading-tones may often be as small as the 18th or 19th of an octave. Xenharmonics may or may nor includes such interpreters' nuances, just as you like; but Xenharmonics is intended to include just intonation and such temperaments as the 5-,7-, and 11-tone, along with the higher-numbered really-microtonal systems as far as one wishes to go."

As to Gene's site, the link to Linear Temperaments is broken, and I still see the numerical address in the address bar for some reason. And the Oggs don't have their MIME types set correctly, but that's probably what you get for cheap hosting. Oh, and The Wedge Product is called "Intervals and Vals" in the title bar.

I'm listening to the Mahler now. Quite good, but the synthesis does let it down so I don't see the point in being obsessive about sound quality.

Graham

🔗Stan Hoffman <stanhoffman@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Stan,

{you wrote...}
>Okay--I downloaded an ogg player and started it up. Tried clicking various
>music links. Each opens in IE as a gibberish text file. Please include
>instructions for playing the files. Thanks.

I think you'll probably be most successful if you download the .ogg file you want to listen to and load it off your machine. I don't think ogg is set up for streaming. Probably best to do the right-click or command-click on a link and choose to "Save target as..." or whatever the wording.

I haven't done this on Gene's site, but it should work like all the other sites in the world.

To Gene: one thing that is common and helpful is to have the size of the file (i.e. 4.2mb) so that maybe a listener will choose a small file to download first. One can make an educated guess with a full movement of a symphony, but size listings would be a good thing. As in the case of an "Overature" (typo).

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Rick,

{you wrote...}
>So what's an "ogg" file and an "ogg" player? Is this an alternative format
>of some type?

This is somewhat cut-and-pasted from something I wrote Joe P. offlist a couple of days ago:

"Well, the ogg format (which comes from people who either use the term or call themselves "vorbis") is an open-source (i.e. non-commercial) format for compressing files that really is pretty impressive. When I tried it out (compared to an mp3 file of the same music), I thought "well, they're both encoded at 128k and the ogg file is only a modest amount smaller".

But it also *sounded better*.

The downside? Not nearly as many people know about it. How can it benefit you? Well, I can think of one way:

- if you know someone is using a current version of Winamp to play mp3 files, it will most likely play an ogg file as well, and you can email them the file, not only sending a smaller but *higher audio quality* (usually) file. The ogg format seems to do far less damage to higher harmonic artifacts than mp3 in it's compression. If you look around the vorbis site (listed below) you'll find a couple of files for comparison. And the encoder tool is really one of the easiest in the world: you start it up and it forms a little square/diamond window on the screen; drag a .wav file over it and voila - you have just done the encoding.

If you want to check it out, take a look at this:

http://www.vorbis.com/download_win.psp

Bear in mind, as a tool or site, it is somewhat "geek-oriented". That said, there is no reason for others to remain in the dark, so if you have time someday you should at least give it a try and see what *you* think about it."

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph S. Barrera III <joe@...>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> This is the official announcement that my web site
> > http://www.xenharmony.org
> > is open for business. There is some theory discussion there, and will I see you've created a web site downloads of interesting music,
at your own expense and through your own effort. I would just
like to take this opportunity to point out your various typos,
complain about the obscure audio file format you've chosen,
flame you about your choice of domain names, and unsubscribe
in a huff because of it.

Have a wonderful day,

- Joe

(Not really trying to insult anyone still subscribed here :-)

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Joe,

{you wrote...}
>I see you've created a web site downloads of interesting music, at your >own expense and through your own effort. I would just like to take this >opportunity to point out your various typos, complain about the obscure >audio file format you've chosen, flame you about your choice of domain >names, and unsubscribe in a huff because of it.
>
>Have a wonderful day,
>
>- Joe
>
>(Not really trying to insult anyone still subscribed here :-)

Sure you are, but we can let that slide. On a mailing list I've belonged to for over 5 year dedicated to web site development and IT infrastructure, it is common for people to offer gentle commentary on small 'glitches' so that when a site really becomes public it comes off in the best light. And if you knew Gene you'd know he is a "nit-picker" in the very best sense: attention to details. Pointing out a type he may have missed is simply one way of assistance.

OTOH, I'm usually known for just posting some kind of sarcastic paragraph...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
> >So what's an "ogg" file and an "ogg" player?
>
>Please, folks; google. Or use the link provided on Gene's site!

Yeah, that's one way. Another way is for people to help each other in plain language. See my other note later...

BTW, what does the following mean:

"That c/b the mime type prob."

Cheers,
Jon (who is all for both search engines and being generous with help)

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
> >"Well, the ogg format (which comes from people who either use
> >the term or call themselves "vorbis")
>
>Vorbis is the format, actually. Xiph is the group. Ogg is
>the project.
>
>vorbis.com is the homepage.

Great: Klingons. No one can help it if they use all these differing hitherto unknown names and terms, but I'll now know to call an ogg file a vorbis file with an ogg extension.

> >I don't think ogg is set up for streaming.
>
>Vorbis does indeed support streaming, via the excellent icecast.

OK, then let's just say "I don't think Gene's site is set up for vorbis streaming via the excellent icecast."

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Joseph S. Barrera III <joe@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

Oh, I inadvertently sent the following only to Carl, and had intended to
CC the community... It might sound gruff, but it's not supposed to be.
Cheers,
Rick

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

Carl,

> Please, folks; google. Or use the link provided
> on Gene's site!

I was just asking because I'd never heard of "ogg" and I wanted a bit of
info before I bother to visit Gene's site and dig around for 5 minutes to
figure out what "ogg" really is. Sorry, but there is not a straight-on
statement up-front that says "Ogg is a format similar to MP3". It could be
a score format, a MIDI-file alternative, a proprietary gizmo, or whatever.
I hadn't a clue.

Nor did I want to Google for twenty minutes to see if I can come up with
what "ogg" is, or why, when someone knowledgeable on this list could state
in one or two sentences. And then the info would be in the list archive
here and everyone else who might also not know would be able to know.

Rick

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Carl,

{you wrote...}
>So what's this non-12 stuff all about? I mean, who uses it anyway? It >looks like a geek thing.

...and the rest.

Uncharacteristically petulant from you!

The larger boat that you seem to be missing, IMO, is that you needn't reply at all if you don't want to. If I've got the time I've no problem pointing out something for another person, even if *I* might find it through Google or other SE.

A further extension of this is to go to vorbis.com and look through the couple of explanations of their naming conventions, where both the naming and the process of describing the naming is at least modestly convoluted, and filled with all manner of cute references to games, mythology, and a lot of other tech-world related lore and life. And, frankly, some people have better things to do than plow through that.

Maybe your air conditioner is set too low. Me, myself, I'm going out into the world for a couple of hours...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...>
wrote:

> Wow, has Xenharmony reached cult status?

Could be. Does 768-et count as Xenharmony?

> I'm listening to the Mahler now. Quite good, but the synthesis
does let
> it down so I don't see the point in being obsessive about sound
quality.

You have three choices that I can see:

(1) Listen to actual orchestral music and put up with the $&%%#
intontation

(2) Listen to sound sample or synth versions, and put up with that
for the sake of intonation

(3) Listen to piano music, where if you take a big piano sound font
the results are good

I thought Fluid and Audio Compositor did well enough on Mahler, for
example, for (2) to be clearly preferable to (1) (sorry, Jon.)
Anyway, I find a liberal dose of (2) in my listening gets on my
nerves less than only (1) all of the time, so I'm making a library of
same for my own use at least. Anyone else who likes it is invited
along.

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>(3) Listen to piano music, where if you take a big piano sound font
>the results are good

No they are not. Shows you haven't heard enough good pianos in enough good rooms.

>I thought Fluid and Audio Compositor did well enough on Mahler, for
>example, for (2) to be clearly preferable to (1) (sorry, Jon.)

No need to apologize, because you're free to listen to whatever you want. I happen to listen to music, not tunings. And when you are talking Mahler, I am not nearly (or even at all) interested in some arcane twisting of intonation as I am in the beautiful and grotesque orchestrations, and preferably in a good concert hall with a large number of human beings playing it. THAT is how the music was intended, THAT is how it sounds best, and anything else is a personal excursion.

Be happy with retuning/rendering. Just don't try to tell anyone it is the real thing, because it isn't.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >(3) Listen to piano music, where if you take a big piano sound font
> >the results are good
>
> No they are not. Shows you haven't heard enough good pianos in
enough good
> rooms.

I'm not comparing it to actual pianos in rooms, but to sound
recordings. Is my version of the Hammerklavier on a Steinway
soundfont so much different than a recording of someone playing the
Hammerklavier on an actual Steinway?

> >I thought Fluid and Audio Compositor did well enough on Mahler, for
> >example, for (2) to be clearly preferable to (1) (sorry, Jon.)
>
> No need to apologize, because you're free to listen to whatever you
want. I
> happen to listen to music, not tunings.

Tunings and music are not separable.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Gene,

{you wrote...}
>I'm not comparing it to actual pianos in rooms, but to sound recordings. >Is my version of the Hammerklavier on a Steinway soundfont so much >different than a recording of someone playing the Hammerklavier on an >actual Steinway?

To be very fair, I'll give a listen at some point (I may try downloading now). But you are already diluting music down to recordings. But think about it: a sound font renders a note one way, and you aren't suggesting that when Martha Aggeriche, or Murry Peria, or any of the great pianists... that each time they strike a middle c# it comes out the same, save for volume?

And if - and this is a colossal IF - you are going to get into multi-sampling on each note, just how many samples will you have to pull in to get all the colors that the great artists can pull from an iron frame with strings attached?

Please.

>Tunings and music are not separable.

All of your recent work seems to point to an opposite belief.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gene,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I'm not comparing it to actual pianos in rooms, but to sound
recordings.
> >Is my version of the Hammerklavier on a Steinway soundfont so much
> >different than a recording of someone playing the Hammerklavier on
an
> >actual Steinway?
>
> To be very fair, I'll give a listen at some point (I may try
downloading
> now). But you are already diluting music down to recordings. But
think
> about it: a sound font renders a note one way, and you aren't
suggesting
> that when Martha Aggeriche, or Murry Peria, or any of the great
pianists...
> that each time they strike a middle c# it comes out the same, save
for volume?

i've had a similar argument with my parents, and the world-class
piano teacher my sister was going to agreed with me. let's assume the
pedals are not used. then the only thing you can control is how fast
the hammer is moving when it hits the string, i.e., velocity. while
this velocity will affect more than just volume, it is a one-
dimensional parameter. soundfonts, if well-designed enough, will be
able to capture well all the parameters of the sound that change as
velocity changes, and thus velocity data should be enough to get all
the expressiveness you need out of the piano sound, on the level of a
single note, that is. beyond that, *timing* of each note relative to
the others is everything when considering musical expression at the
piano.

now the pedals of course have an effect on the sound too; no
rendition of piano music would be realistic without some well-modeled
pedalling (including the resonance of the unsounding, but undampened,
strings when the pedal is depressed).

> And if - and this is a colossal IF - you are going to get into
> multi-sampling on each note,

this is done, at enough points on the velocity curve to get a smooth
interpolation going. at least that's how it works for the standard
digital pianos that are out there these days.

🔗2357111317 <spigot@...>

heh, it always surprises me to find hard feelings on the tuning lists..
it's almost fun to read just for the oddness of seeing strong feelings
about music theory (and hmm, maybe 'music theory' is a dangerous term
to use, but i'll risk it..). ..in any case, in all the years of being
interested in tunings, while never diving into the deepest end, i had
never come across an actual definition of 'xenharmony', and was pleased
to see it today.. and even with attribution! now i'm curious about
ivar -- where would i go to learn more?

i had always assumed/guessed that xenharmony meant something like
xen = alien, weird; + harmony. it fit well with what i personally
was interested in -- weird music. :) and what with the x and all,
who couldn't like the word?

i have nothing to say other than these random thoughts. i have yet
to find a really enjoyable way to explore and compose xenharmonic
music. still poking at the edges uncertainly...

pfly

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>then the only thing you can control is how fast the hammer is moving when >it hits the string, i.e., velocity. while this velocity will affect more >than just volume, it is a one-dimensional parameter.

i'm not so sure of that.

>now the pedals of course have an effect on the sound too; no rendition of >piano music would be realistic without some well-modeled pedalling >(including the resonance of the unsounding, but undampened, strings when >the pedal is depressed).

which can't be done on a note-by-note basis. currently (obviously)

>this is done, at enough points on the velocity curve to get a smooth >interpolation going. at least that's how it works for the standard digital >pianos that are out there these days.

and the standard digital pianos sound like crap next to a good 7' or 9' box. polished crap, to be sure, but it is a different instrument entirely, and in sampling, the closer you get to the real thing to more you notice what is missing.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗2357111317 <spigot@...>

the best piano in the world played by the best performer will suffer
terrible degredation if recorded with a poorly placed dirty microphone,
digitized to less than or equal to 16 bits of 44.1khz samples,
and played back through a 10 year old $80 home amp and dodgy speakers,
as is the case for me and probably most people.

i don't have a point... other than that i wished i had the money and
space for a nice piano... and that yea, gotta compare apples to
apples. live acoustic instruments are infinitely better than
CDs through loudspeakers... infinite.. literally! ...what really
gets me is when i go see live acoustic music and there
is amplification. kinda defeats the whole point ...

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Paul:
>>then the only thing you can control is how fast the hammer is moving when >>it hits the string, i.e., velocity. while this velocity will affect more >>than just volume, it is a one-dimensional parameter.

Jon:
> i'm not so sure of that.

I agree with Paul. When the hammer hits the string, it isn't under the control of the player. All you have is velocity and timing. The tricky part to model with samples is apparently the timing.

The Mahler sounds fine, BTW. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, only that unless it's a really superb mockup you shouldn't worry about burning a CD to get the highest sound quality. I'd still rather hear a real orchestra, but that wouldn't demonstrate the tuning. Whereas I often prefer retuned synth pianos to real piano recordings.

There's a JdL 11-limit retuned Verklaerte Nacht file out there which I prefer to any other version I've heard, despite the tacky rendering. It turns out that the people working on it (I think Monz was involved) weren't happy with some of the details. So you can get musically worthwhile results from this kind of activity, even when you don't think it's working. It's certainly worth a try.

I'm hoping Gene's own music will collect there as well, with his finely crafted Vorbis renderings. Currently that's another dead link, but hey, I'm not complaining, you put the site together in your own time...

Oh, I've got a copy of Maple V now, so if you make your code available I could try and attack it.

Graham

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Graham,

{you wrote...}
>I agree with Paul.

I also note that neither of you is a pianist. Recently there were discussions on one of the lists about the sonic qualities of cymbals, being spoken by people who - unlike myself - have neither a sizable cymbal collection nor regular experience playing and listening to them.

I said I wasn't sure, and that means there may be a lot to the idea that it is only velocity, but my jury is out. I believe the piano actions may have something to do with it as well.

>All you have is velocity and timing.

That's not true at all, G. You've got the effects of one string's sounding on another string that is unmuted! The interactions thereof are quite profound.

>There's a JdL 11-limit retuned Verklaerte Nacht file out there which I >prefer to any other version I've heard, despite the tacky rendering.

So you are listening to the tuning, and no other part of the music?

>I'm hoping Gene's own music will collect there as well, with his finely >crafted Vorbis renderings.

Agreed. I'm far more interested in someone's personal paintings than the paintings where they simply (or complicatedly) changed the colors on someone else's. (gad, I wish I understood apostrophes more...)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> A further extension of this is to go to vorbis.com and look through the > couple of explanations of their naming conventions, where both the naming > and the process of describing the naming is at least modestly convoluted, > and filled with all manner of cute references to games, mythology, and a > lot of other tech-world related lore and life. And, frankly, some people > have better things to do than plow through that.

It turns out that they only adopted these names as light-hearted working titles, and people started using them, so they stuck. Anyway, to find out what Ogg actually means, try the FAQ:

http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp#names

> Maybe your air conditioner is set too low. Me, myself, I'm going out into > the world for a couple of hours...

That could be it. I noticed the list was getting heated, but I don't know what the weather's like over your way. I kind of thought it was hot all the time, but perhaps it's particularly bad today?

Myself, I don't have air conditioning, and it gets quite hot during the day in the computer room, so I usually switch off. It's nice and cool at this time of night, though.

Graham

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:

> I also note that neither of you is a pianist...

No, but we're both physicists.

>>All you have is velocity and timing.
> > That's not true at all, G. You've got the effects of one string's sounding > on another string that is unmuted! The interactions thereof are quite profound.

You've got velocity and timing multiplied by however many keys there are.

>>There's a JdL 11-limit retuned Verklaerte Nacht file out there which I >>prefer to any other version I've heard, despite the tacky rendering.
> > So you are listening to the tuning, and no other part of the music?

What's that supposed to mean? I'm listening to the music, and I like the overall effect despite some superficial details being obviously sub-standard. If I were only listening to the tuning I probably wouldn't like it, because I'm told there are problems with it.

> Agreed. I'm far more interested in someone's personal paintings than the > paintings where they simply (or complicatedly) changed the colors on > someone else's. (gad, I wish I understood apostrophes more...)

I was very interested in John deLaubenfels' adaptive tuning while he was working on it. As he isn't as good a composer as Schubert, it was the retuned Schubert that won me over. Now, Gene isn't up to Schubert's standard either, but he's written some listenable music in some very interesting tuning systems. Although there are other things I could listen to for purely musical value, it's always good to hear creative use made of new ideas. The best theoretical work Gene's done is geared towards the creation of new music, and hearing his music gives you some idea of what he's up to.

Oh, are we talking about music? I uploaded a new version of my (still only) Thomas Hardy song to http://x31eq.com/music a while back, but didn't announce it for reasons that should become obvious if you were to listen to it.

Graham

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

{you wrote...}
>It turns out that they only adopted these names as light-hearted working
>titles, and people started using them, so they stuck. Anyway, to find
>out what Ogg actually means, try the FAQ:
>
>http://www.vorbis.com/faq.psp#names

Yes, I didn't spell out the exact urls but I visited the two or three pages that related to all the naming conventions. And it *did* illustrate why there would be some confusion surrounding it, and probably something I didn't need to waste my time on. But I did. :)

>That could be it. I noticed the list was getting heated, but I don't know >what the weather's like over your way.

Many are on the West coast, some up north in the SF Bay area, and I'm in the southern part. It has warmed up today, but a few days/weeks ago the bay area was unusually warm.

>It's nice and cool at this time of night, though.

...and, hopefully, quiet.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

{you wrote...}
> > I also note that neither of you is a pianist...
>
>No, but we're both physicists.

That doesn't explain everything in art.

> > That's not true at all, G. You've got the effects of one string's sounding
> > on another string that is unmuted! The interactions thereof are quite > profound.
>
>You've got velocity and timing multiplied by however many keys there are.

But there is more than velocity and timing.

> >>There's a JdL 11-limit retuned Verklaerte Nacht file out there which I
> >>prefer to any other version I've heard, despite the tacky rendering.
> >
> > So you are listening to the tuning, and no other part of the music?
>
>What's that supposed to mean? I'm listening to the music, and I like the >overall effect despite some superficial details being obviously >sub-standard. If I were only listening to the tuning I probably wouldn't >like it, because I'm told there are problems with it.

*You* used the phrase "tacky rendering", which I take to mean that it is a poor substitute for real strings. When you say "some superficial details", are you referencing orchestration? If no one had said there were 'problems' with the tuning, do you think you would have liked it?

My basic premise is that these examples take a medium - string quartet, string orchestra, full orchestra, marching band, etc. - and reduced them to static, sample renderings. If one can listen to that and *not* have a problem missing the sound of the instrumentation, then they are focussing on some smaller part of the music than what I would be listening to.

To my ears, as a musician, these kind of renderings ruin the music more than any intonation would.

But we're only part way along the path, and some number of years down the road I'm willing to bet a lot of this will be pretty doable. In fact, there are techniques and hard/software that could do a better job of it, but I'm not convinced it could be done at the same time that all the tuning work is going on as well.

Some day, it will.

>Oh, are we talking about music? I uploaded a new version of my (still >only) Thomas Hardy song to http://x31eq.com/music a while back, >but didn't announce it for reasons that should become obvious if you were >to listen to it.

Well, Graham, I consider it that you are the yang to the yin of those millions of people who gladly post oodles of bad music and try and get everyone and anyone to listen (and I *don't* mean people on these lists, but places like mp3.com, etc.)

You're just being humble and keeping the universe in balance...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>you aren't suggesting that when Martha Aggeriche, or Murry Peria,
>>or any of the great pianists... that each time they strike a
>>middle c# it comes out the same, save for volume?

Good sample libraries include different samples for different
velocities.

>while this velocity will affect more than just volume, it is a
>one-dimensional parameter. soundfonts, if well-designed enough,
>will be able to capture well all the parameters of the sound
>that change as velocity changes, and thus velocity data should
>be enough to get all the expressiveness you need out of the piano
>sound, on the level of a single note, that is.

A good additive or physical model can change appropriately with
velocity, but the best wavetable pianos feel the need for entirely
separate samples.

>beyond that, *timing* of each note relative to the others is
>everything when considering musical expression at the piano.

See...
http://tinyurl.com/gpfv

>now the pedals of course have an effect on the sound too; no
>rendition of piano music would be realistic without some well-
>modeled pedalling (including the resonance of the unsounding,
>but undampened, strings when the pedal is depressed).

Even when the pedal isn't depressed there are resonances that
should be considered. Also, the pedal can be used to slap
the strings, and you need a model for that. Generalmusic, and
others, do this sort of thing. But most sample sets just take
separate samples with pedal for each note, which doesn't work.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>while this velocity will affect more
>>than just volume, it is a one-dimensional parameter.
>
>i'm not so sure of that.

Paul's right. See the url I posted. The performer has
no control over the hammer when it strikes the strings.
The hammer has fixed mass, so its strike velocity is
the only variable (for a single note).

A main reason digital pianos don't sound as good is
the _action_. There's no way to get the control over
the patch like on a real instrument. Again, see the
url I posted.

Actually, crap, that's not the url I wanted -- only
a summary paper. I can't find the whole thing on the
web right now. Try:

http://lumma.org/zip/VirtualPianoAction.zip

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>>All you have is velocity and timing.
>
>That's not true at all, G. You've got the effects of one string's
>sounding on another string that is unmuted!

Note we were talking about single-note only. Multi-note effects
apparently aren't that hard to model. Just some filters that come
in and out on demand. Ideally, though, you scrap wavetable and
go with a physical model from the ground up -- then you don't have
to worry about velocity or multi-strings or anything; it all just
comes out of the model.

Incidentally, I disagree with you Gene about music being
inseparable from tuning. It's a matter of degrees. You can
watch things break as you change the tuning, even to the point
of changing the 'scale', as you demonstrated with A. Composer.
Randomize pitch completely, and you're still left with something.

Like Jon, I listen to music, not tunings. Which would be fine
whether or not they were inseperable.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_4941.html#4985

> >>while this velocity will affect more
> >>than just volume, it is a one-dimensional parameter.
> >
> >i'm not so sure of that.
>
> Paul's right. See the url I posted. The performer has
> no control over the hammer when it strikes the strings.
> The hammer has fixed mass, so its strike velocity is
> the only variable (for a single note).
>

***I'm not so certain this question is as simple as posed. The piano
grand action, which was *quite* sophisticated for its time, uses a
triangle-designed "balencier..." The strike velocity is quite a
complex maneuver and part of the reason for this is so that repeated
strikes can be made without the hammer going all the way back down.

The position of the piano key determines how much of this balencier
effect is used, and that can be controlled by the pianist.

Maybe Ed Foote should get into this: but my main point is that the
piano action is quite complex from a physical point of view, and we
should discuss it with a qualified piano technician. (This much I
*do* know...)

J. Pehrson

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> Paul's right. See the url I posted. The performer has
>> no control over the hammer when it strikes the strings.
>> The hammer has fixed mass, so its strike velocity is
>> the only variable (for a single note).
>>
>
>***I'm not so certain this question is as simple as posed. The piano
>grand action, which was *quite* sophisticated for its time, uses a
>triangle-designed "balencier..."

Never heard of it. Maybe it's another name for whippen?

>The strike velocity is quite a complex maneuver and part of the
>reason for this is so that repeated strikes can be made without
>the hammer going all the way back down.

Right. To the performer, it's actually an acceleration, over
various portions of the hammers possible range of motion. Which
is why digital keyboards are inadequate (see my earlier post).

But to the string, it's just a velocity. Paul and Graham are
absolutely right.

>Maybe Ed Foote should get into this: but my main point is that the
>piano action is quite complex from a physical point of view, and we
>should discuss it with a qualified piano technician. (This much I
>*do* know...)

I've regulated pianos, though I welcome comments from Ed or anyone
else who probably knows more about actions than I.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, 2357111317 <spigot@n...> wrote:

> the best piano in the world played by the best performer will suffer
> terrible degredation if recorded with a poorly placed dirty
microphone,
> digitized to less than or equal to 16 bits of 44.1khz samples,
> and played back through a 10 year old $80 home amp and dodgy
speakers,
> as is the case for me and probably most people.

If you can't afford better speakers, get headphones. Even cheap ones
will sound a lot better than your speakers. Electronoics are cheap
and you can get a better amp easily enough if you need one. As for
the standards of audio CDs, they just barely good enough to capture
the range of human hearing, but just barely should do.

>
> i don't have a point... other than that i wished i had the money and
> space for a nice piano... and that yea, gotta compare apples to
> apples. live acoustic instruments are infinitely better than
> CDs through loudspeakers... infinite.. literally!

I had a Phillpe Entremont recording of the complete Mozart piano
sonatas which were recorded thousands of miles away from where he
was, off a different piano. I wish they had tried that with Gould.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...>
wrote:

> There's a JdL 11-limit retuned Verklaerte Nacht file out there
which I
> prefer to any other version I've heard, despite the tacky
rendering.

Joe Monzo made that, and I wish I had it. I lost mine in a computer
meltdown.

> I'm hoping Gene's own music will collect there as well, with his
finely
> crafted Vorbis renderings. Currently that's another dead link, but
hey,
> I'm not complaining, you put the site together in your own time...

That is my plan, but I want to make new versions.

> Oh, I've got a copy of Maple V now, so if you make your code
available I
> could try and attack it.

Maple V should work, though I wrote a lot of it with a newer version
of Maple. I think I put it up on your website and was going to link
to it, until I decided I was going to need a lot more room and got my
own. Look in my file area for a maple folder. Please dion't laugh too
hard at my notion of coding. :)

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> My basic premise is that these examples take a medium - string
quartet,
> string orchestra, full orchestra, marching band, etc. - and reduced
them to
> static, sample renderings. If one can listen to that and *not* have
a
> problem missing the sound of the instrumentation, then they are
focussing
> on some smaller part of the music than what I would be listening to.

Then don't listen to them (especially not string quartets!) Listen to
the piano music instead, but avoid my Mozart on a fake Rhodes
electric.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>you aren't suggesting that when Martha Aggeriche, or Murry Peria,
> >>or any of the great pianists... that each time they strike a
> >>middle c# it comes out the same, save for volume?
>
> Good sample libraries include different samples for different
> velocities.

Indeed they do, and I'm talking about *big* fonts, with lots of
layers, natural decay and suchlike neat stuff. While being large
hardly suffices to make a soundfont good, consider the following:

Trachtman Steinway: 21646 kb
Roland Grand: 5485 kb
Clavinova: 123626 kb
JV 1080: 12393 kb
Rhodes 73: 14902 kb
Roland "nice": 9580
Roland Players: 9727

I use various piano soundfonts, and the above gives you an idea of
the range of sizes. I think I'll go download some more. :)

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Graham,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >I agree with Paul.
>
> I also note that neither of you is a pianist.

guess again. classical piano lessons ages 5-10, piano in home ages
4-18, on which ear training self-taught ages 10-12, piano at every
dinner in college dining hall, ages 18-21, over 100 gigs playing
piano, $50-100, ages 25-26 (hear it on kevin so's cd, _along the
way_), currently own piano in home, play daily (avg. 20-25 min.),
*tune* it to different tuning systems (as discussed on list), blah
blah blah.

> I said I wasn't sure, and that means there may be a lot to the idea
that it
> is only velocity, but my jury is out. I believe the piano actions
may have
> something to do with it as well.

the piano action affects how the player's motions translate into
hammer velocity. hammer velocity is still the only parameter the
player can vary (without using the pedals).

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...>
wrote:
> Jonathan M. Szanto wrote:
>
> > I also note that neither of you is a pianist...
>
> No, but we're both physicists.
>
> >>All you have is velocity and timing.
> >
> > That's not true at all, G. You've got the effects of one string's
sounding
> > on another string that is unmuted! The interactions thereof are
quite profound.
>
> You've got velocity and timing multiplied by however many keys
there
are.

velocity and timing multiplied by 2^88, because there are 88 sets of
strings that can be either muted or unmuted at any given time.

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Even when the pedal isn't depressed there are resonances that
> should be considered.

yes, that's true -- and these will vary depending on which *other*
keys are depressed. i was really arguing (with my parents) the case
that for a *single* note played, say a middle c#, all you can vary is
how fast the hammer is moving when it hits the string. from
experience, i know that you can do other fancy things like get the
hammer to lightly touch the string while it's already vibrating, but i
don't think i've heard, or heard of, this effect used in performances
of classical music.

> Also, the pedal can be used to slap
> the strings,

always fun! (for the neighbors especially . . .)

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Paul,

{you wrote...}
>guess again. [snip]

Then, publicly, I offer my apology. And then hasten to add that I couldn't tell that from "Tibia", and I offer no clues as to how *good* a pianist you were, how developed your touch, etc. You haven't offered, nor has Graham or anyone else measuring things, how Andre Watts can come in and play the same Steinway and bring out a seemingly myriad of colors and textures on the same piano that sounded moderately colorless the day before. There is *something* more to it than shear velocity. And I'm going to canvas both players and piano technicians.

Because I believe art goes beyond measurement.

>the piano action affects how the player's motions translate into hammer >velocity. hammer velocity is still the only parameter the player can vary >(without using the pedals).

I wonder how exquisite your touch is, and I mean that as a question, not an accusation.

Regards,
Jon

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

{you wrote...}
>yes, that's true -- and these will vary depending on which *other* keys >are depressed.

No joke.

>i was really arguing

Not surprising.

>(with my parents) the case that for a *single* note played, say a middle >c#, all you can vary is how fast the hammer is moving when it hits the string.

But, for heavens sake, we're NOT talking about a *single* note - the original discussion involved whether a sampled/synthesized piano could emulate all the nuances of an acoustic piano performance, and *you* and Graham did a reductionist excursion into one-note analysis.

Real world. Not the place for one-note thinking.

I'm tired. I've argued too much, and now I'm really sick about what is going on, even on this list.

Later,
Jon

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >No, but we're both physicists.
>
> Neither of you is a physicist, last I checked.
>
> -Carl

i'm a physicist by education, and the piano is a classical mechanics
problem. the velocity of the hammer at the moment it hits the string,
which as you said is out of the player's control at that time (due to
the escapement mechanism), will determine the amount of energy
transferred to the string. there's no other "information" that the
player can communicate to the string via the playing mechanism. but
you already know this.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

>> Neither of you is a physicist, last I checked.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>i'm a physicist by education, and the piano is a classical mechanics
>problem. the velocity of the hammer at the moment it hits the string,
>which as you said is out of the player's control at that time (due to
>the escapement mechanism), will determine the amount of energy
>transferred to the string. there's no other "information" that the
>player can communicate to the string via the playing mechanism. but
>you already know this.

Yes, why are you repeating it? "Physicist" implies profession, to me.

-Carl

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >guess again. [snip]
>
> Then, publicly, I offer my apology. And then hasten to add that I
couldn't
> tell that from "Tibia", and I offer no clues as to how *good* a
pianist you
> were, how developed your touch, etc.

well, i'll apologize yet again for that performance, it was on a
crappy ensoniq synth, and i had to stretch the hell out of my hands to
finger those 22-equal chords . . .

> You haven't offered, nor has
Graham or
> anyone else measuring things, how Andre Watts can come in and play
the same
> Steinway and bring out a seemingly myriad of colors and textures on
the
> same piano that sounded moderately colorless the day before.

and all english authors use the same 26 letters, yet some color our
world far more than others. the velocity and timing of each note, for
any piece with a decent number of notes, even an unaccompanied melody,
represent a huge number of dimensions in which aesthetic information
can be communicated to a listener. even for a single chord, an expert
pianist will use just the right velocity, independently (and more
subtly, but equally importantly, timing) on each note, to achieve the
particular resonance, balance, and shading they seek. the interaction
of these considerations when performing a contrapuntal work is
exceedingly complex, and a fine player's intuition, running in real
time, is probably going to yield better results than someone sitting
for 5 years carefully crafting a midi file.

> There
is
> *something* more to it than shear velocity. And I'm going to canvas
both
> players and piano technicians.

please do so! by the way, have you ever heard of the disklavier?

> Because I believe art goes beyond measurement.

maybe it's a quantum thing -- if you measure it, you destroy it.

> >the piano action affects how the player's motions translate into
hammer
> >velocity. hammer velocity is still the only parameter the player
can vary
> >(without using the pedals).
>
> I wonder how exquisite your touch is, and I mean that as a question,
not an
> accusation.

my touch sucks right now because by piano at home has super-heavy
action. not much in the way of chops either; i know harmony and play
with soul.

but this really *is* a physics question. you understand that the
piano's hammer is literally "thrown" out of its housing, and after
it's released, there's nothing the player can do to affect its motion
until *after* it's hit the string and bounced back? assuming, that is,
that it was thrown fast enough to hit the string at all?

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> {you wrote...}
> > > You've got velocity and timing multiplied by however many keys
there are.
> >
> >velocity and timing multiplied by 2^88, because there are 88 sets
of
> >strings that can be either muted or unmuted at any given time.
>
> Yes, Paul, I'm sure everyone had that figured out already.

i'm not sure graham did.

> But it
> really
> warms the heart that you could complete the statement.

you're welcome!

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan M. Szanto"
<JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> P,
>
> {you wrote...}
> >yes, that's true -- and these will vary depending on which *other*
keys
> >are depressed.
>
> No joke.
>
> >i was really arguing
>
> Not surprising.
>
> >(with my parents) the case that for a *single* note played, say a
middle
> >c#, all you can vary is how fast the hammer is moving when it hits
the string.
>
> But, for heavens sake, we're NOT talking about a *single* note -
the
> original discussion involved whether a sampled/synthesized piano
could
> emulate all the nuances of an acoustic piano performance, and *you*
and
> Graham did a reductionist excursion into one-note analysis.

excuse me, who brought up the middle c#?

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

{you wrote...}
>excuse me, who brought up the middle c#?

I know - we both used one note to illustrate different directions of thought, me to say that taking each note individually and putting them back together (sampling) doesn't add up to the same thing as the 88-note whole. You were examining one note and claiming it contained all the information necessary. Sorry that it became cloudy.

I still think there is something ephemeral there. My brain tells me that there can't be anything besides velocity and timing, but my ears and years tell me that those two parameters can't account for all that I've heard. I was talking about this last night with the woman who is the pianist for the symphony, and she ends up in about the same place that I'm at: being an intelligent person, she realizes what seems to be the only answer but is somehow certain that there is more to it. And then she said it was "PFM". I asked what that was, and she said that when her partner goes flying, he said he understands all the physics of flight, and knows his plane inside and out, but still is astonished that flight does indeed work, and attributes at least part of it to Pure Fucking Magic.

Well, I guess sometimes musicians are magicians, huh?

BTW, I didn't mean to impugn your pianistic abilities, and wish it hadn't come off that way. I only meant it that I hadn't realized, through either discussion or the one recording of you on keys, that you had significant time spent behind the ivories. Seriously, no slight intended.

Cheers,
Jon

Announcing xenharmony.org

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Stan Hoffman <stanhoffman@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph S. Barrera III <joe@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Joseph S. Barrera III <joe@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗2357111317 <spigot@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗2357111317 <spigot@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Graham Breed <graham@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <perlich@...>

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗Rick Taylor <ricktaylor@...>