list cutoffs

Heya Paul,

Don't know if you're reading tuning or tuning-math, but wondered
if you wouldn't mind posting an explanation of how you finally
chose the cutoffs for the temperament lists in your new paper.

-Carl

>Heya Paul,
>
>Don't know if you're reading tuning or tuning-math, but wondered
>if you wouldn't mind posting an explanation of how you finally
>chose the cutoffs for the temperament lists in your new paper.
>
>-Carl

Oh, and are your new lists available online anywhere?

-C.

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

> >Heya Paul,

Hi!

> >Don't know if you're reading tuning or tuning-math,

I'm reading both.

> > but wondered
> >if you wouldn't mind posting an explanation of how you finally
> >chose the cutoffs for the temperament lists in your new paper.

Oh yeah, I found an "instant" message from you on that, but you
weren't there for me to reply to it.

See /tuning-math/message/9317 for a
previous "moat"-based cutoff that was discussed for 7-limit.
Something similar was done for the 5-limit which included all the
main-sequence 5-limit temperaments in my paper except Passion.

Then Dave Keenan, on and off the tuning-math list, became more and
more convinced that a concave cutoff makes little sense, and that a
convex (probably elliptical) cutoff would generally be more
appropriate. Slightly swayed by his comments, I went for straight-
line cutoffs (a compromise that has the advantage of being very
simple), that included all the temperaments the "moats" did and only
very few more.

I mentioned this here:
/tuning-math/message/10378

I then ended up also including two 5-limit "exotemperaments" and two
5-limit "bonus temperaments", so the total went from 50 to 54.

> Oh, and are your new lists available online anywhere?

No, but again, I'm happy to snail-mail the paper to anyone who wants
it.

And hopefully Igliashon is restoring for you the preliminary keyboard
layouts that were being discussed here.

-P

Thanks!

-C.

>--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
>> >Heya Paul,
>
>Hi!
>
>> >Don't know if you're reading tuning or tuning-math,
>
>I'm reading both.
>
>> > but wondered
>> >if you wouldn't mind posting an explanation of how you finally
>> >chose the cutoffs for the temperament lists in your new paper.
>
>Oh yeah, I found an "instant" message from you on that, but you
>weren't there for me to reply to it.
>
>See /tuning-math/message/9317 for a
>previous "moat"-based cutoff that was discussed for 7-limit.
>Something similar was done for the 5-limit which included all the
>main-sequence 5-limit temperaments in my paper except Passion.
>
>Then Dave Keenan, on and off the tuning-math list, became more and
>more convinced that a concave cutoff makes little sense, and that a
>convex (probably elliptical) cutoff would generally be more
>appropriate. Slightly swayed by his comments, I went for straight-
>line cutoffs (a compromise that has the advantage of being very
>simple), that included all the temperaments the "moats" did and only
>very few more.
>
>I mentioned this here:
>/tuning-math/message/10378
>
>I then ended up also including two 5-limit "exotemperaments" and two
>5-limit "bonus temperaments", so the total went from 50 to 54.
>
>> Oh, and are your new lists available online anywhere?
>
>No, but again, I'm happy to snail-mail the paper to anyone who wants
>it.
>
>And hopefully Igliashon is restoring for you the preliminary keyboard
>layouts that were being discussed here.
>
>-P

>> Oh, and are your new lists available online anywhere?
>
>No, but again, I'm happy to snail-mail the paper to anyone who wants
>it.

It'd be great to have the 7-limit list in the tuning list's
database area (with the 5-limit one). I'd offer to enter it
myself, but I still haven't found my paper copy.

-Carl