FB-01 again

Greetings All,

Ewan A. Macpherson wrote (John Chalmers also sent me a note to this
effect.) :
>The FB-01 has no tuning tables. All microtuning must be done on the
>fly by replacing note-on & note-off messages with sysex messages
>indicating the exact pitch to be played.

You mean you can't just sick the sequencer/controller onto the FB-01 ?
How about having some kind of MIDI processing between the note-ons/offs
and the synth appending the sysex commands to them ?
Would this be possible ?

Rick Sanford wrote :
>Unisyn (MAC) supports the FB-01 for microtuning
>and is very cheap.
Hmm does this mean that I wouldn't have to perform the previusly
mentioned contortions ?
I would be able to just send note-on & note-off messages from a
sequencer/controller ?

>If you use MAX, you can also write a tuning librarian.
but it's not cheap ;-)

>I have to ask, why are you about to buy an FB-01?
>Or is someone giving you one? Such a dog unit!
Do the words *short on cash* hold any special meaning for you ?
And,like I said I've also got Finale & a MIDI guitar convertor on my
shopping list.
I figure I can get a more respectable synth later.

Also, I'm in Goa,India and I have to deal with other matters like
shipping costs,ridiculous import duties,a constantly sinking
currency,absurd bureaucracy,even more absurd bureaucrats,etc.

Then again, this FB-01 thing looks ike more trouble than it's worth.

Bye,
Drew

I seem to recall having offered this chord (1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4) some time
back as a small-integer-ratio "interpretation" of the French sixth
chord. Since the 225/224 vanishes in my fave, 31TET, it works in that
tuning as well--in fact, I'm beginning to realize that the 225/224 may
be as significant in my septimal messing about as the 81/80 is to the
diatonic scale.

--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
-\-\-- o
NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 14:37:35 -0400, Paul H. Erlich wrote:

>I was playing around with a harmonica sound on my Ensoniq VFX-SD tuned
as close as possible to JI (the scale being the JI version of the
pentachordal decatonic scale of my paper, hence 12 notes per octave with
two 50:49 "commas"). Playing the chord 1/1 5/4 3/2 7/4, and dropping the
3/2 down to 7/5, I didn't hear much of an increase in dissonance. After
some confusion, I realized that the only potentially dissonant interval
in this chord is the 28:25 (196 cents) between 5/4 and 7/5.

The difference between 5/4 and 7/5 is 23:20 which is 241.961 cents.

>Now the
Ensoniq's tuning tables allow cents values for each note, and I had
approximated the other intervals in such a way that the 28:25 was
nominally represented by 199 cents.

28:25 coverts to 196.198 cents.

>Since the true tuning resolution of
the Ensoniq VFX-SD is 512 notes per octave, this interval was probably
represented by 85/512 octave, or 199.2 cents.

85[+512] : 512 converts to 265.905 cents.

>This is only 4.7 cents off
a just 9/8, which explains the relative consonance of the chord.

9:8 converts to 203.91 cents which is a difference from 265.903 of 61.993
cents.

>It is a
near miss to a saturated 9-limit chord. A true 28/25 would be 7.7 cents
off a just 9/8, which would be quite a bit more dissonant.

28:25 converts to 196.98 cents which is a difference from 203.91 (for 9:8) of
6.93 cents.

>The difference between 28/25 and 9/8 is 225/224, a fundamental
comma-like interval in Fokker's writings.

The difference between 28:25 and 9:8 is 201:200.

I use the following Mathematica formulas and its Rationalize[] function for all
conversions.

cent2rat[cents_]:=10.^((Log[10,2]/1200) cents)
rat2cent[ratio_]:=1200/Log[10,2] Log[10,ratio]

-------------
Benjamin Tubb
brtubb@cybertron.com
http://home.cybertron.com/~brtubb

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Benjamin Tubb wrote:
> . . . I realized that the only potentially dissonant interval
> in this chord is the 28:25 (196 cents) between 5/4 and 7/5.
>
> The difference between 5/4 and 7/5 is 23:20 which is 241.961 cents.

Say what!? 7 * 4 = 28. 5 * 5 = 25. Ergo the difference between 7/5 and
5/4 is 28/25.

> >The difference between 28/25 and 9/8 is 225/224, a fundamental
> comma-like interval in Fokker's writings.
>
> The difference between 28:25 and 9:8 is 201:200.

Similarly, 9 * 25 = 225, and 8 * 28 = 224.

(What are you _on_, Ben? 8-)> )

--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
-\-\-- o
NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>

>I seem to recall having offered this chord (1/1 5/4 7/5 7/4) some time
>back as a small-integer-ratio "interpretation" of the French sixth
>chord. Since the 225/224 vanishes in my fave, 31TET, it works in that
>tuning as well

Here's my problem with that: the 28:25 is represented in 31TET by 193.5
cents, and that interval by itself doesn't really evoke a consonant 9:8.
If one really hears intervals at the 9-limit or higher, then both 9:8
and 10:9 must be considered consonant, and there should be a dissonant
point about halfway between them. 193.5 cents is awfully close to that
dissonant point. There are many chords in 31TET where the 9:8 is clearly
evoked, because other ratios are supporting that interpretation. But in
this chord, that doesn't happen.

The chord doesn't sound too bad in 31tET, but I would argue that that
has nothing at all to do with the vanishing of the 225/224. Instead,
it's that the five consonant intervals are tuned extremely well in
31tET.

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Benjamin Tubb wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, you wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Benjamin Tubb wrote:
> > > The difference between 5/4 and 7/5 is 23:20 which is 241.961 cents.
> > >
> > > The difference between 28:25 and 9:8 is 201:200.
> >
> > Say what!? 7 * 4 = 28. 5 * 5 = 25. Ergo the difference between 7/5 and
> > 5/4 is 28/25.
>
> I've already corrected the semantic misunderstandings concerning the use of
> "difference" with Mr. Erlich. I "simply" assumed the _plain english meaning_ of
> subtraction was intended.

Um, er, yes, but the arithmetical difference between 5/4 and 7/5 is
3/20, not 23/20. And the arithmetical difference between 28/25 and 9/8
is 1/200, not 201/200. So I'm still a little confused where you got
those figures . . .

--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
-\-\-- o
NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Here's my problem with that: the 28:25 is represented in 31TET by 193.5
> cents, and that interval by itself doesn't really evoke a consonant 9:8.
> If one really hears intervals at the 9-limit or higher, then both 9:8
> and 10:9 must be considered consonant, and there should be a dissonant
> point about halfway between them.

I don't agree with this reasoning. Is the 22-equal 7/5 similarly
at a dissonant point? Or is the just 11/9 at a dissonant point
between 6/5 aand 5/4?

> There are many chords in 31TET where the 9:8 is clearly
> evoked, because other ratios are supporting that interpretation. But in
> this chord, that doesn't happen.

Granted, the 9/8 isn't "clearly evoked" but it can still function
as a 9-limit consonance. Besides, how do the other ratios
support 10/9???


For the record, 28/25 vanishes in almost all meantone and schismic
temperaments. Exceptions are 26- and 118-equal. Diaschismic
scales generally express it, the exception here being the
remarkably economical (if not so accurate) 22-equal.

>> Here's my problem with that: the 28:25 is represented in 31TET by
193.5
>> cents, and that interval by itself doesn't really evoke a consonant
9:8.
>> If one really hears intervals at the 9-limit or higher, then both 9:8
>> and 10:9 must be considered consonant, and there should be a
dissonant
>> point about halfway between them.

>I don't agree with this reasoning. Is the 22-equal 7/5 similarly
>at a dissonant point?

Yes, it is, and it requires other notes to support either the 7/5 or the
10/7 interpretation. The mechanism for supporting ratios is the root in
the otonal case and the common overtones in the utonal case. I don't
claim that there is any similarity between these two mechanisms.

>Or is the just 11/9 at a dissonant point
>between 6/5 aand 5/4?

Yes, unless the conditions are sufficient for hearing the 11-limit,
which may be rather often. But the simplest interval between the 9/8 and
the 10/9 is the 19/17 and conditions are rarely sufficient for hearing
the 19-limit.

>> There are many chords in 31TET where the 9:8 is clearly
>> evoked, because other ratios are supporting that interpretation. But
in
>> this chord, that doesn't happen.

>Granted, the 9/8 isn't "clearly evoked" but it can still function
>as a 9-limit consonance.

How so?
Think about triads in 12-equal. Even though all the intervals in the
augmented triad can function as consonances in major and minor triads,
the augmented triad is dissonant. And the thirds aren't even close to
any simple ratios other than the 5-limit ones. Can you say that all
three intervals in an augmented triad are functioning as 5-limit
consonances?

>Besides, how do the other ratios
>support 10/9???

They don't support either. They support 28/25, which is too complex to
be psychoacoustically relevant.

>Think about triads in 12-equal. Even though all the intervals in the
>augmented triad can function as consonances in major and minor triads,
>the augmented triad is dissonant. And the thirds aren't even close to
>any simple ratios other than the 5-limit ones. Can you say that all
>three intervals in an augmented triad are functioning as 5-limit
>consonances?

Thirds in 12-equal are mistuned 5-limit intervals. So, the chord as a
whole will be a mistuned 5-limit chord. The mistuning is as important
as the 5-limit bit. Augmented triads sound more dissonant in 31-equal,
so this must be relevant.

The 9/8 in 31-eq is tuned much better than the 5/4 in 12-eq. So, it
should be more recognisable as a consonance. Unless you think higher
limit intervals generally require better tuning, but three out of tune
intervals will still be worse than one.

I'll write the chord under discussion as Eb-G-A-C#. The G-A interval
_is_ ambiguous as to 9/8 or 10/9 -- I made a mistake in my working
before. The chord does sound worse in 31-eq than 1/5 comma meantone or
schismic temperament, probably because of the poor 9/8. However, that
interval isn't so bad as to be unimportant. I don't see that its
proximity to 10/9 makes it _more_ dissonant, but maybe nobody else does
either. The chord sounds worse in golden meantone, implying that G-A
really should be 9/8 and not 10/9. I generally find 9/8 to be much the
more consonant interval, although they are almost equally complex.

I find that G-Eb-A-C# and Eb-G-C#-A sound better than A-Eb-G-C# and
Eb-A-C#-G in 31-eq. In golden meantone, they all have roughly the same
consonance. I suggest this is because of the 9/4 vs 10/5.

The 31-eq 9/8 and 28/25 both being sharp is the most relevant thing
here. Ideally, the tempered interval should be between the two just
ones for them to both be well tuned.

I need to do more listening to be sure of these things. Does anyone
have a good chord progression that exploits this comma?