Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic comparison of Bosanquet and Jones keyboards

For fun i thought what would happen if i started with the 'worse' bosanquet layout for 22, the one that looks at it through pelog eyes and which is the one use and see how it comes out for 22 ET>
this wast result.
http://anaphoria.com/22ETkeyboard.gif
notice that the pitches marked with a dot corespons to one of IJ keybaords.
in the following i take the row of marked tones and place dulicates above to more closely comparte with his keyboard ( sorry i am not able to lay it out in the keyboard shapes that he has)
http://anaphoria.com/22ETkeyboard2.gif
It is a bosonquet layout starting at D# and proceeding to D+ where it is shifted down.
-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> It is a bosonquet layout starting at D# and proceeding to D+ where
it
> is shifted down.

Yep. The latest design I uploaded which has 4 uniform rows of keys
with no extra gaps is basically a specific bosanquet lattice applied
to a 'traditionally' shaped keyboard, color-coded to make visual
sense. I'm trying to avoid staggered keys at all costs, since we're
going to be building this ourselves (read: by hand). My previous
design is almost exactly the same except that it has one "extra"
white key added for "B" to keep the pattern from shifting up by a row
every octave. This is about as close to generalized as we can get
and still use piano-style keys.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Yes you reinvented an octave sample of a bonsanquet. It seems once you have to finger scales at a slant , there is no reason not to make the layout consistant.
One could just as easily introduce a slight slant to the rows of traditionally shaped keys to bring this about. But either way th it is fiunny that the compromise was already in your design.
One of the big problems with the 22 is that it is much more removed from diatonic music than is acknowledged here. You stated that 22 was closer to a harmonic hexad than 31 which is not the case. the size of a 10/9 for instance could not be further away landing almosst dead in the middle between two units of this tuning. It has it eccentricies which make it interesting, but as a bridge traditional harmony or as a close to just scale is stretching the idea as far as one can go. Of course that does not take away from it features as possible scale to use. the less tones one uses the better cause this makes it easier to move around and 22 is thus easier han 31, having played on both types of instruments.
.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
> >
>> It is a bosonquet layout starting at D# and proceeding to D+ where >> >>
>it > >
>>is shifted down.
>> >>
>
>Yep. The latest design I uploaded which has 4 uniform rows of keys >with no extra gaps is basically a specific bosanquet lattice applied >to a 'traditionally' shaped keyboard, color-coded to make visual >sense. I'm trying to avoid staggered keys at all costs, since we're >going to be building this ourselves (read: by hand). My previous >design is almost exactly the same except that it has one "extra" >white key added for "B" to keep the pattern from shifting up by a row >every octave. This is about as close to generalized as we can get >and still use piano-style keys.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Staggered keys are little or not at all more difficult , one has only to make the stem longer which is no different than what you are going to have to do with the various rows anyway.
True you can not mass produce, one size fits all, but even with the conventional 7 white and 5 black, the white keys vary in size even when they look the same visually. i discovered this when i attempted to put together a keyboard idea from two existing keyboards. D and A are different shapes for example.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
> >
>
> I'm trying to avoid staggered keys at all costs, since we're >going to be building this ourselves (read: by hand). >
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> One of the big problems with the 22 is that it is much more
removed
> from diatonic music than is acknowledged here.

>You stated that 22 was
> closer to a harmonic hexad than 31 which is not the case.

I did? I don't recall that, especially because I do not know what a
harmonic hexad is. Either way, I'm certainly familiar with the fact
that 31 approximates JI much better than 22, which was why 31 was the
first temperament I explored (using my first refretted guitar), so I
don't think I would have argued anything inconsistent with that.

>but as a bridge traditional harmony or as a close
> to just scale is stretching the idea as far as one can go.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that. 22 is compatible with
diatonicity, except that the thirds are 7-limit instead of 5. One of
the reasons I prefer 22 is that it has this "septimal" diatonic MOS
scale, whereas in 31 to get a scale using the 7-limit thirds requires
using 3 interval sizes and causes the occurrence of 2 dissonant
triads instead of just one. Not to mention 22 does 33/32, 9/7,
11/10, 11/8, 64/33 and 16/11 better than 31, and 5/4, 3/2, 4/3,
16/15, 15/8, and 8/5 are only slightly farther off than in 31. In a
sense 22 is almost a complement of 31 as far as diatonics go.

Of course
> that does not take away from it features as possible scale to use.
>the less tones one uses the better cause this makes it easier to
>move around
> and 22 is thus easier han 31, having played on both types of
>instruments.

I concur. My 22-equal guitar is much easier than my 31-equal, and I
imagine keyboards to be the same.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>
>> <>I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that. 22 is compatible with
>> diatonicity, except that the thirds are 7-limit instead of 5. One of
>> the reasons I prefer 22 is that it has this "septimal" diatonic MOS
>> scale, whereas in 31 to get a scale using the 7-limit thirds requires
>> using 3 interval sizes and causes the occurrence of 2 dissonant
>> triads instead of just one.
>
One of the features i thought you mentioned about the major scale in 22 was the two different sizes of seconds. It seem if i am understanding you here that if you have more different size intervals this is a bad thing. One of my problems with temperments in general is that the lack of differentiation between ratios it is supposed to appoximate. It is pretty hard to say just what is consonant and disonant is a scale which , for me, has such a high tolerance. The 9/8 such a bed rock interval in a diatonic ,7 limit or otherwise is pretty sharp. 15 cents, this is as bad as a third in 12 ET. I do prefer a sharp whole tone to a small one and i guess i will not pursuit what the limit of tolerance might be. i guess my point that if i were to use such a scale i would just use it for what it is as opposed to what it appoximates.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> One of the features i thought you mentioned about the major scale
in 22
> was the two different sizes of seconds.

Actually, I believe that was Jacob who said that. There is indeed a
scale like that, but I'm not so fond of it. In fact the whole reason
I am using temperaments is because I like my scales to have only two
interval sizes, since they are consistent that way and easier to
conceptualize. I'm sure that I'll eventually develop the patience to
work up some JI theory, but for now I'm keeping it (relatively)
simple (for microtonality).

>i guess my point that if i were to use such a scale i would just use
it
> for what it is as opposed to what it appoximates.

Aye, I'm certainly not disputing that. I didn't mean to suggest
anything by mentioning the intervals that 22 approximates well. I am
well aware of how temperaments by definition cause various JI
intervals to converge into one, for example the 163 cent 3-degree
interval in 22 IS close to a Just 11/10, but it is also thought of as
both a 12/11 and a 10/9.

I think what Jacob was suggesting was that you CAN "think about" 22
as something similar to Just because it does offer a non-MOS major
scale with 3 sizes of 2nd, even though the 2nds don't really
approximate JI. It's more of an analogy than anything else.

But this is getting a little too theoretical, I think.

Did I mention I'm building a tubulong?

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I tried trough resonation and it did increase the volume a bit.( if i tried this again i would use metal instead of wood cause i am sure it would reflect better) I noticed once that a tubes about 3 inches above a surface will be louder. You can try this yourself with having someone hit a tube you hold with foam on the resonators and slowly raise the tube. it seem not to be a matter of pitch either with the effect tapering off as you move up in pitch. I once tried mounting tubes is rows where the distance between the bars were all about three inches thinking it might help, using the other tubes to make a kind of resonator wall for each other. It didn't seem to work as there is too much space between the adjacent tubes for it to really do anything. It would be a though experiment to try different distances to see if you could do something along these lines. I only mention this as it is

It is hard to mike these type of instruments in general cause they take up such a wide area and places closest to the mike are always loudest. Even with bars you have this problem. Since so much of what i do involves building up and exploiting resonances in the space, i find miking is best avoided except as a very last resort. Even when i play in clubs , i no longer use any and find i can get a decent volume. often the features of these tunings involve phenomenon that speakers don't deal with well.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

> >
>> although over the years i have found i needed bars for the volume
>> to play in front of people.
>> >>
>
>I wonder if there's some way to increase the volume...hmm. Well, >even if there's no way to change the design, there's always >microphones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Wow. I think this is going to be quite a learning experience! Any
suggestions on how the best way to tune the bars? I know there's no
easy formula for it, that it will mostly be by ear, but are there any
considerations to take into account/ways to make it easier and less
tedious? I want to try to avoid as many mistakes as I can.

-igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I tried trough resonation and it did increase the volume a bit.( if
i
> tried this again i would use metal instead of wood cause i am sure
it
> would reflect better) I noticed once that a tubes about 3 inches
above a
> surface will be louder. You can try this yourself with having
someone
> hit a tube you hold with foam on the resonators and slowly raise
the
> tube. it seem not to be a matter of pitch either with the effect
> tapering off as you move up in pitch. I once tried mounting tubes
is
> rows where the distance between the bars were all about three
inches
> thinking it might help, using the other tubes to make a kind of
> resonator wall for each other. It didn't seem to work as there is
too
> much space between the adjacent tubes for it to really do anything.
It
> would be a though experiment to try different distances to see if
you
> could do something along these lines. I only mention this as it is
>
> It is hard to mike these type of instruments in general cause they
take
> up such a wide area and places closest to the mike are always
loudest.
> Even with bars you have this problem. Since so much of what i do
> involves building up and exploiting resonances in the space, i find
> miking is best avoided except as a very last resort. Even when i
play in
> clubs , i no longer use any and find i can get a decent volume.
often
> the features of these tunings involve phenomenon that speakers
don't
> deal with well.
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> although over the years i have found i needed bars for the volume
> >> to play in front of people.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I wonder if there's some way to increase the volume...hmm. Well,
> >even if there's no way to change the design, there's always
> >microphones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

i think Sethares has a formula ( young's formula i think it was
called?) He passed this on to me on the tuning list some years ago and
the funny think was that i compared it to some of the bars on my bass
instrument. It was sometimes more than 2' off but that was not because
of the formula we concluded , but that some of the added bars were a
different run of metal which taught us that the same type of metal can
vary allot. you have to get it all at once and it should be the same
run, which normally what it is.

this might give you a good idea. basically it is about 2 octaves for
half the length and Partch has a chart of this.

6061 T6 ( of T5 too i think) aluminum. I have used one inch . i tried
1.5'' for when i tuned up the full hebdomekontany but really was not
pleased with the overall sound.
I have seen a few 2' tubalong which gives you more volume but the price
goes way up and the tone i am not sure is as pure, but it is an option.
best to cut a few sample pieces to make sure you like the sound.

If the tubes are too long , you start to get the harmonics of the b
tubes instead of the fundamental

you can use different metal but you have to make sure there are no
seams in it. I made my full dallesandro CPS (36 pitches) out of brass
which i really liked, but in recent years i have not been able to find
seamless brass, and often the places could not tell me if it were or not
so i did allot of driving around, it was not fun.

You basically have to cut the tubes long and work your way up
slowly. filing the last bit. If you go too high , use it for the next
pitch up. if you are just barely, barely over you can sand the tubes in
the middle, but this is only a last resort. Sawing or filing will heat
up the bar which LOWERS the pitch, most of the time very slightly,
dipping in water and drying them off or coming back in a few minutes
will take care of this. This phenomenon is more pronounced in bars. With
my bass bars i would wait till the next day to get the last few cents.
which also brings up the influence of temperature. i tune only when it
is 72 degrees ( ok i will keep going if i am within a degree or two) as
the average.

I should mention that if you are going to build acoustic
instruments, you should know that Cris Forster is the person who knows
the most about instrument building. Much of what he knows, he has put
into his book, and probably if everyone on the tuning list sent his
foundation $75 each he might have enough funds to be able to publish it
himself. When i does come out, it will be the definitive book on the
subject.

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>Wow. I think this is going to be quite a learning experience! Any >suggestions on how the best way to tune the bars? I know there's no >easy formula for it, that it will mostly be by ear, but are there any >considerations to take into account/ways to make it easier and less >tedious? I want to try to avoid as many mistakes as I can.
>
>-igs

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Igs (by way of Kraig's thoughts),

{Kraig wrote...}
>I should mention that if you are going to build acoustic instruments, you >should know that Cris Forster is the person who knows the most about >instrument building.

Not to mention that Cris is in SF, and even more not to mention that these are some of the most beautifully built and sounding instruments of our recent history. You can see them and read more on his (Foundation's) website:

http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

This is a bit off-topic, but in the FYI department, since many of us here
are do-it-yourselfers in the alternative tuning universe...

Kraig Grady wrote:

> probably if everyone on the tuning list sent his foundation
> $75 each he might have enough funds to be able to publish
> it himself

These days with print-on-demand and home computers being what they are,
the cost of publishing yourself is near zero. If you can design your own
cover and get your stuff into a PDF file of the right size, you can publish
black & white with a 4-color cover for $100 out of pocket.

http://www.booksurgepublishing.com/ppexpress.php

I've done it this way, and the people are fine to work with. The print
quality is nice. Service is fast. Customers can order on-line and have
almost instant shipment.. For anyone who wants to get a book onto paper,
this is about the cheapest way to make it happen.

> if you are going to build acoustic instruments, you should
> know that Cris Forster is the person who knows the most
> about instrument building. Much of what he knows, he has
> put into his book

If it really talks about how-to and gives details on tuning home-brew
instruments, I'd buy one... ;-)

Cheers,

Rick

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Alot of what Cris would need funds for (I imagine) would be with the design and getting in all the right illustrations. Think on the line of Chalmers book . He is an extreme perfectionist and demand a certain quality in everything he produces. we are talking about man that made his own string winding machine to make any size string when he could not get the gauges he wanted.
As an aside when he uncovered one of his canons , he mentioned that he had been working on other instruments for the past nine months and wasn't sure if it was still in tune. i proceeded to play across some of the strings that were meant to be unison. Not a single beat could i hear between 6 or 7 strings. in tune after 9 months. ( ok it was a temperature controlled room, but still!)

Rick McGowan wrote:

>This is a bit off-topic, but in the FYI department, since many of us here >are do-it-yourselfers in the alternative tuning universe...
>
>Kraig Grady wrote:
>
> >
>>probably if everyone on the tuning list sent his foundation
>>$75 each he might have enough funds to be able to publish
>>it himself
>> >>
>
>These days with print-on-demand and home computers being what they are, >the cost of publishing yourself is near zero. If you can design your own >cover and get your stuff into a PDF file of the right size, you can publish >black & white with a 4-color cover for $100 out of pocket.
>
>http://www.booksurgepublishing.com/ppexpress.php
>
>I've done it this way, and the people are fine to work with. The print >quality is nice. Service is fast. Customers can order on-line and have >almost instant shipment.. For anyone who wants to get a book onto paper, >this is about the cheapest way to make it happen.
>
> >
>>if you are going to build acoustic instruments, you should
>>know that Cris Forster is the person who knows the most
>>about instrument building. Much of what he knows, he has
>>put into his book
>> >>
>
>If it really talks about how-to and gives details on tuning home-brew >instruments, I'd buy one... ;-)
>
>Cheers,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Allot of what Cris would need funds for (I imagine) would be with the design and getting in all the right illustrations. Think on the line of Chalmers book . He is an extreme perfectionist and demand a certain quality in everything he produces. we are talking about man that made his own string winding machine to make any size string when he could not get the gauges he wanted.
As an aside when he uncovered one of his canons , he mentioned that he had been working on other instruments for the past nine months and wasn't sure if it was still in tune. i proceeded to play across some of the strings that were meant to be unison. Not a single beat could i hear between 6 or 7 strings. in tune after 9 months. ( ok it was a temperature controlled room, but still!)

Rick McGowan wrote:

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

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

> One catch is that you can't use aluminum. So
> you either use steel, which is harder to work
> with, or you can glue a strip of iron filings
> on the aluminum tubes.

What about copper?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>> Or pickups!
> >>>
> >>> -C.
> >>
> >>That'd be a bit expensive, no?
> >
> >Not if you make them yourself!
>
> One catch is that you can't use aluminum. So
> you either use steel, which is harder to work
> with, or you can glue a strip of iron filings
> on the aluminum tubes.
>
> -C.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@...>

🔗Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@...>

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Do a search for both words on Google and you will turn up many people
calling the same instrument by both names. I actually use both names
depending on if I'm too lazy to add the "g" at the end.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
wrote:
> Not that it's very important, but Erv Wilson called these
instruments
> "tubulongs", with the -ong ending recalling the word "song".
(See, for
> example, page 15 of: http://www.anaphoria.com/genus.PDF -- an
instrument
> I know well (I have a copy with two extra ranks to expand to 22 or
29
> tones) The set of instrument designs based on interwoven harmonic
> series were called "helixsongs". (See:
http://www.anaphoria.com/hel.PDF ).
>
> Daniel Wolf

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

Igs and others,

{you wrote...}
>Do a search for both words on Google and you will turn up many people >calling the same instrument by both names. I actually use both names >depending on if I'm too lazy to add the "g" at the end.

Yeah, well it gets weirder than that: none other than Dean Drummond, the curator of the Partch instruments, built himself a tub*(g), and decided to call it a Zoomoozophone. Has always taken first place for me for dorky names, but to each his own! Craziness aside, this might be a source of info as well, tuned in JI:

http://www.deandrummond.com/zoomprimer.htm
http://www.deandrummond.com/zoomphoto.htm

You can hear it on a number of his recordings.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I have only known people to call it as Daniel points out. sounds like an error started then perpetuated. I don't think google has a referance to all that have been made either

Igliashon Jones wrote:

>Do a search for both words on Google and you will turn up many people >calling the same instrument by both names. I actually use both names >depending on if I'm too lazy to add the "g" at the end. >
>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>Not that it's very important, but Erv Wilson called these >> >>
>instruments > >
>>"tubulongs", with the -ong ending recalling the word "song". >> >>
>(See, for > >
>>example, page 15 of: http://www.anaphoria.com/genus.PDF -- an >> >>
>instrument > >
>>I know well (I have a copy with two extra ranks to expand to 22 or >> >>
>29 > >
>>tones) The set of instrument designs based on interwoven harmonic >>series were called "helixsongs". (See: >> >>
>http://www.anaphoria.com/hel.PDF ).
> >
>>Daniel Wolf
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

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

🔗Igliashon Jones <igliashon@...>

Well, David Barnes, Buzz Kimball, Stan Hoffman, and the ExMI people
all refer to it as a "tubulon" with no G. I can provide links if you
like. In fact it was through Buzz that I first heard of the
instrument, so I took his spelling of it as authoritative even though
I later encountered the alternate spelling. However, if the origin
of the instrument is indeed with Erv Wilson, and he called it a
tubulonG, then that is what I shall call it. Really, though, there's
no need to split hairs...what's in a name?

-igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> I have only known people to call it as Daniel points out. sounds
like an
> error started then perpetuated. I don't think google has a
referance to
> all that have been made either
>
> Igliashon Jones wrote:
>
> >Do a search for both words on Google and you will turn up many
people
> >calling the same instrument by both names. I actually use both
names
> >depending on if I'm too lazy to add the "g" at the end.
> >
> >--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf1@a...>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Not that it's very important, but Erv Wilson called these
> >>
> >>
> >instruments
> >
> >
> >>"tubulongs", with the -ong ending recalling the word "song".
> >>
> >>
> >(See, for
> >
> >
> >>example, page 15 of: http://www.anaphoria.com/genus.PDF -- an
> >>
> >>
> >instrument
> >
> >
> >>I know well (I have a copy with two extra ranks to expand to 22
or
> >>
> >>
> >29
> >
> >
> >>tones) The set of instrument designs based on interwoven
harmonic
> >>series were called "helixsongs". (See:
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.anaphoria.com/hel.PDF ).
> >
> >
> >>Daniel Wolf
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles