Reply to Matt.

Yes I remember Matt. You did a great job on the manual for
Music-X. I am still looking for Music-X 2, for less than
$150 which was the price at the Virgin megastore in Oxford
Street a few months ago. Iwent back with cash in November
two months after I first saw it and the shelves were empty.
Now to LucyTuning.
>A sampler can - simply sample the instrument.
That is exactly what we have been doing with arc-angel,
sampling LucyTuned guitars, and building riffs and loops.
Search on arc-angel for his site with sound etc.
It is at cityscape.co.uk, last time I looked, or4 EMail him at
arc-angel@cityscape.co.uk.
The problem comes when you try to retune the samples with
a sampler for the Ensoniq fails to give closer than one cent,
and playing against the retuned sample produces tuning errors,
unless you retune to the retuned sample, which then results
in interval errors between the retuned samples.
We have got around it as best we could with the LucyTuned
Lullabies album, yet problems remain if you try to get too
complicated with the samples using MIDI to drive them.
Have a listen on our new ShockWave site at
www.WonderlandInOrbit/projects/lullaby from Tokyo.
>partials

I stand semantic correction. I had always understood "partials"
to mean multiples of a frequency. i.e frequency multiplied by an
integer.
I have been using the term "harmonics" in the musical
(what you hear) sense rather than in the mathematical sense.
I agree, we do need some agreement on terms.
Would someone be prepared to compile a draft "Tuning
Termanology Dictionary" which we could discuss and agree here
on-line?
My problem with the term harmonics is that I have failed to find a
better term to describe those notes that you hear as you touch
an open guitar string gently at specific "audible" points.
(Remember, my first indtrument is guitar)
So what do we call those positions, without implying that
they MUST only occur at integer frequency ratios.
I sometimes feel that the whole termanology of music,
has been "hi-jacked" by the traditional physics model.
This makes it very difficult to express otherperspectives.
Charles Lucy (from beautiful Hawaii Puna)

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:26 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA26317; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 14:26:55 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA26191
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id FAA25220; Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:20:06 -0800
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 05:20:06 -0800
Message-Id: <199702050806_MC2-10D8-A084@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

Gary Morrison wrote:

> > > That puts the P5 at
> > > about 695.5 cents, which means that it's somewhat similar with 88TET
> > > (not
> > > to be confused with 88CET).
> >
> > 88TET stands for 88-tone equal temperament, but what does 8CET stand for?
>
> 88CET stands for "88-Cent [per step] Equal Temperament". 88TET and
> 88CET could be characterized as inverses of each other: 88TET has a step
> size of ~13.63c and 88 steps/octave, whereas 88CET has a step size of 88c
> and ~13.63 steps/octave.
>
> This "CET" terminology is my idea, as far as I know. It's convenient
> for a naming an equal-temperament whose step-size is an even number of
> cents but doesn't work out to any exact subdivision of any particular
> integer or integer ratio. 88CET is pretty close to 3 equal steps per 7:6,
> 4 per 11:9, 5 per 9:7, 7 per 10:7, 8 per 3:2, 10 per 5:3, 11 per 7:4, 16
> per 9:4, or 18 per 5:2, but it isn't exactly any of those.
>
> Carlos' alpha could be described as 78CET, and beta as 64CET.

Ah, of course. Funny I didn't recognize the C as cents, since I've
used a similar notation for the command line interpretation syntax
of my MIDI tuning dump equal temperament generator in C (computer
language). Here are some examples of the argument syntaxes it
understands:

ET [generates an equal temperament of random step width]
ET 12 [generates 12 tones per octave equal temperament]
ET 100 C [generates equal temperament with step size of 100 cents]
ET C 100 [same as above]
ET 85.33333 Y [generates equal temperament with step size of 85.33333
yamaha tuning units (1024 per octave)]
ET Y 85.33333 [same as above]
ET 12 2 1 [generates equal temperament of 12 steps per 2/1 ratio]

If you allow Y into the terminological extensions, one might write
4TET 300CET 256YET.

I also like sometimes to measure intervals in fractions of an octave,
such as 3/2 ~0.58496 octaves. This helps detwelvulate (thanks Ivor)
the sense that you get from measuring intervals in cents.

BTW, it was playing with the random tunings from which I learned the
most and that helped me understand that, to my intuitive ear anyway,
all ET's lean towards one of two groups, those that provide close
approximations of some number of just intervals, and ones that deftly
avoid just intervals. There are some raucous ET's which give you
almost no pitch combinations which are comfortable at all.

Matt Nathan

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:06 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA27721; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 11:06:32 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA27825
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id CAA10156; Thu, 6 Feb 1997 02:04:06 -0800
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 02:04:06 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu