xen wind instruments, I'm curious

> Drew Skyfyre writez:

> >From what I understand, many players achieve different tunings
> by using various fingerings. From this list, I know this has been
> done on flute and bassoon. To which other wind instruments has this
> approach been applied ? And, what types of tunings are possible ?

Between NewBand and the American Festival of Microtonal Music,I've heard most of the
winds and brass used for microtonality.Some other examples: La Monte Young's Second
Dream ofthe High Tension Stepdown Transformer (8 harmon mute trumpets),
Terry Riley's Chanting the Light of Foresight (Sax. Qt.),
Horatiu Radulescu's Inner Time (clarinet ensemble)...


>

* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

>I don't mean to belittle anyone's ideas, and perhaps I've misunderstood
>something, but it seems to me that this "nanotempering" is a pretty
>obvious thing, really.

It may be obvious to some, but a number of people on this list have
concerned themselves with consistency in tunings such as 768-tET, and
since consistency requires the best approximation to be used for each JI
interval, those people probably have not considered the alternative of
using different approximations for the same just interval at different
pitch levels. This underscores my point that consistency (which was my
idea in the first place) is not important for large ETs, say, above
69-tET.

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Paul H. Erlich wrote:
> This underscores my point that consistency (which was my
> idea in the first place) is not important for large ETs, say, above
> 69-tET.

It's not important for the same reasons, of course, but "not important"
(at all) is overstating the case a bit, I think. Consistency level of
high ETs can still provide useful information--in Margo's case, for
example, a synth whose internal ET had a consistency level greater than
or equal to 12 at the 3-limit (as 1024 does) would require no
nanotempering at all for most Pythagorean scales.

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

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Paul Hahn wrote:
> Consistency level of
> high ETs can still provide useful information--in Margo's case, for
> example, a synth whose internal ET had a consistency level greater than
> or equal to 12 at the 3-limit (as 1024 does) would require no
> nanotempering at all for most Pythagorean scales.

Or, if you don't like that example, how 'bout a JI-ist who wanted to
tune up Ellis' duodene, which is a 5-limit scale with a diameter of 5.
If, as Daniel Wolf mentioned a while back, someone made a synth whose
internal ET was 612, it would require no nanotempering for this purpose,
because 612TET is level 21 consistent at the 5-limit. 665 would also
work (level 6), but 624 (level 3) would not.

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

I don't mean to belittle anyone's ideas, and perhaps I've misunderstood
something, but it seems to me that this "nanotempering" is a pretty
obvious thing, really. It's the natural result of not rounding off to
the granularity of your synth until you've calculated all the pitches
involved as precisely as possible. It's also basically the same as a
standard technique used in computer graphics called "dithering".

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

>I don't mean to belittle anyone's ideas, and perhaps I've misunderstood
>something, but it seems to me that this "nanotempering" is a pretty
>obvious thing, really. It's the natural result of not rounding off to
>the granularity of your synth until you've calculated all the pitches
>involved as precisely as possible. It's also basically the same as a
>standard technique used in computer graphics called "dithering".

"Dithering" (also "jittering" in the time domain) refers to a randomization
of the rounding through the introduction of noise. It would be basically
the same if Margo was advocating a random distribution of rounding error,
which she is not. She is instead trying to find the the best regular
distribution to support the desired tuning, which I don't think is as
obvious as you say.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Bill Alves wrote:
>> It's also basically the same as a
>> standard technique used in computer graphics called "dithering".
>
> "Dithering" (also "jittering" in the time domain) refers to a randomization
> of the rounding through the introduction of noise.

Oops, sorry. Hmm, I thought "dithering" meant the ongoing cumulation of
roundoff errors when iterating a process involving non-small-integer
ratios to avoid larger errors by the end--the standard example being a
loop to draw, pixel by pixel, a straight line between two random
cartesian points. That's what I was told when _I_ took CG, anyway.

> She is instead trying to find the the best regular
> distribution to support the desired tuning, which I don't think is as
> obvious as you say.

In what way does the following sentence (from my previous post) not
cover it?

>> It's the natural result of not rounding off to
>> the granularity of your synth until you've calculated all the pitches
>> involved as precisely as possible.

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

------------------------------

End of TUNING Digest 1501
*************************