Converting 22tet to traditional cent figures..

For those people who feel uncomfortable using the somewhat rough
intervals of 22tet I have converted them to cent figures which are more
in line with the figures found in the traditional literatures.
Mathematicians can then fiddle about with any emerging patterns in 0 to
21 and practising musicians may try out their ideas using the converted
figures as a comparison. Others may disagree with this conversion and
design their own. It is only meant to be a working model. The converted
figures are: 0 becomes 0, 55 becomes 63, 109 becomes 112, 164 becomes
182, 218 becomes 204, 273 becomes 267, 327 becomes 316, 382 becomes
386, 436 becomes 435, 491 becomes 498, 545 becomes 520, 600 becomes
590, 655 becomes 639, 709 becomes 702, 764 becomes 765, 818 becomes
814, 873 becomes 884, 927 becomes 933, 982 becomes 969, 1036 becomes
1018, 1091 becomes 1088, 1145 becomes 1137 and 1200 becomes 1200.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> For those people who feel uncomfortable using the somewhat rough
> intervals of 22tet I have converted them to cent figures which are
more
> in line with the figures found in the traditional literatures.
> Mathematicians can then fiddle about with any emerging patterns in
0 to
> 21 and practising musicians may try out their ideas using the
converted
> figures as a comparison. Others may disagree with this conversion
and
> design their own. It is only meant to be a working model. The
converted
> figures are: 0 becomes 0, 55 becomes 63, 109 becomes 112, 164
becomes
> 182, 218 becomes 204, 273 becomes 267, 327 becomes 316, 382 becomes
> 386, 436 becomes 435, 491 becomes 498, 545 becomes 520, 600 becomes
> 590, 655 becomes 639, 709 becomes 702, 764 becomes 765, 818 becomes
> 814, 873 becomes 884, 927 becomes 933, 982 becomes 969, 1036
becomes
> 1018, 1091 becomes 1088, 1145 becomes 1137 and 1200 becomes 1200.

How does it sound? What "traditional literatures" is this scale
from? It's quite different from 22-tET

PGH

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<phjelmstad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > For those people who feel uncomfortable using the somewhat rough
> > intervals of 22tet I have converted them to cent figures which
are
> more
> > in line with the figures found in the traditional literatures.
> > Mathematicians can then fiddle about with any emerging patterns
in
> 0 to
> > 21 and practising musicians may try out their ideas using the
> converted
> > figures as a comparison. Others may disagree with this conversion
> and
> > design their own. It is only meant to be a working model. The
> converted
> > figures are: 0 becomes 0, 55 becomes 63, 109 becomes 112, 164
> becomes
> > 182, 218 becomes 204, 273 becomes 267, 327 becomes 316, 382
becomes
> > 386, 436 becomes 435, 491 becomes 498, 545 becomes 520, 600
becomes
> > 590, 655 becomes 639, 709 becomes 702, 764 becomes 765, 818
becomes
> > 814, 873 becomes 884, 927 becomes 933, 982 becomes 969, 1036
> becomes
> > 1018, 1091 becomes 1088, 1145 becomes 1137 and 1200 becomes 1200.
>
> How does it sound? What "traditional literatures" is this scale
> from? It's quite different from 22-tET
>
> PGH
>
From Robert. People should decide how it sounds for themselves.
Perhaps it might be helpful if I group the figures into their
families and things will be made more clear. ( 498-0-702-204 ) and (
63-765-267-969 ) and ( 933-435-1137-639 ) and ( 112-814-316-1018-
520 ) and ( 182-884-386-1088-590 ). You should notice that all the
figures inside the brackets are 702 cents apart. The initial
conditions of these figures are based on the 3rd octave partials of
the harmonic series 0-386-702-969 but can also be obtained from some
aspects of ancient Greek music.