Digest 1189

In Digest 1189, John Loffink writes:

>The MIDI Tuning Dump standard certainly has deficiences, probably
>because not many people contributed to its conception.

Most likely. Six people contributed to original spec. A preliminary
version was published in Computer Music Journal with a request for
comments. One comment was received.

>The greatest limitation is the insistance on handling tuning dumps
>only on a full keyboard basis. This makes dynamic tuning programs
>like Justonic's almost impossible as the MIDI bandwidth can't
>support real-time updates.

But the spec says that the full keyboard "non-real-time" dump isn't
intended for performance. Instead, there's an additional 12-byte
"real-time" message for retuning any individual note on the fly.

I don't know exactly what Justonic is doing, but I can't imagine why it
would need more than these 12 bytes per note-on. The synthesizer
doesn't need to know the entire tuning table, it just needs to get
up-to-date frequency data for sounding notes from its host.

>The other problem is the immediate updating of sustained notes.
>This is also a problem for real-time key modulations, especially
>for rapid paced music.

To quote from the spec:

"There is some question as to whether instantaneous response to
real-time tuning changes is desirable in every circumstance. In some
performance situations it makes more sense if a tuning change affect
only those notes which occur subsequent to the change, and not affect
sounding notes. But there are also situations in which tuning changes
should take place instantaneously, as specified in the standard, and
should affect sounding notes without disrupting their continuity.

"If the instrument responds well in the latter situation, some
workaround is possible for the former. The reverse is not true.
Therefore the standard requires that tuning changes immediately affect
sounding notes. Manufacturers might, however, consider implementing a
switchable instantaneous/next-note-on option within an instrument."

I still think this is sound. An example of when immediate response by
sounding notes might be desired: glissando of a tone to keep a fixed
tonic during certain modulations.



SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: mr88cet@texas.net
Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1184
PostedDate: 27-09-97 18:18:24
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 27-09-97 18:18:04-27-09-97 18:18:05,27-09-97 18:17:06-27-09-97 18:17:07
DeliveredDate: 27-09-97 18:17:07
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id
C125651F.00598879; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:17:56 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA32762; Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:18:24 +0200
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 18:18:24 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA32561
Received: (qmail 10021 invoked from network); 27 Sep 1997 09:18:20 -0700
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 27 Sep 1997 09:18:20 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu

> The real answer is 13, because they are 12 plus 1, such of the Octave. ...
>8 means total notes and 12 means note-names (or structural notes if we
>like).So to equalize concepts if we use 8/Oct we must use 13/Oct, and if we
>use 12/Oct we must use 7/Oct.

At the risk of being presumptuous, I think I can probably speak for most
tuning enthusiasts when I say that you're far better off using 12 and 7
than 13 and 8. In summary, you're asking for trouble when you count both
beginning and ending notes (e.g., both upper and lower Cs in a C scale)
when you also admit the possibility of repeating that pattern - using the
upper C as the root of that same scale in the next octave.

Ideally fifths would have been called fourths, unisons called zeros,
octaves sevenths, thirds seconds, and so forth. That would ensure that
intervals "add" correctly, like in the case of a fourth plus a third coming
out to a sixth. Clearly 4+3=7 rather than 6. If, historically speaking,
we had recognized the (perfect) unison as a pitch difference of zero (which
is after all exactly what it is) then fourths would have been called
thirds, thirds called seconds, and sixths called fifths, and the result
would have been correct: 3+2=5.

But in the end our only option is to accept that the damage is done. We
just use traditional interval nomenclatures as formal, conventional names,
and attribute only very limited numerical meaning to them. Fourths,
thirds, and sixths are just names; they could just as appropriately have
been called johns, sarahs, and franks.

So the fact that the etymology of the word octave suggests the number 8
most of us view as largely inconsequential, because it really suggests 7
diatonic steps, or 12, 19, or whatever chromatic steps.



SMTPOriginator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
From: mr88cet@texas.net
Subject: Re: Well thankyou
PostedDate: 28-09-97 18:09:05
SendTo: CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH
ReplyTo: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
$UpdatedBy: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=coul1358/OU=AT/O=EZH,CN=Manuel op de Coul/OU=AT/O=EZH
RouteServers: CN=notesrv2/OU=Server/O=EZH,CN=notesrv1/OU=Server/O=EZH
RouteTimes: 28-09-97 18:08:40-28-09-97 18:08:42,28-09-97 18:07:41-28-09-97 18:07:42
DeliveredDate: 28-09-97 18:07:42
Categories:
$Revisions:

Received: from ns.ezh.nl by notesrv2.ezh.nl (Lotus SMTP MTA v1.1 (385.6 5-6-1997)) with SMTP id
C1256520.0058ADAD; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:08:36 +0200
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA00524; Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:09:05 +0200
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 18:09:05 +0200
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA00538
Received: (qmail 21466 invoked from network); 28 Sep 1997 09:08:15 -0700
Received: from localhost (HELO ella.mills.edu) (127.0.0.1)
by localhost with SMTP; 28 Sep 1997 09:08:15 -0700
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu