Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Raven Explore

Thank you. I think John's tuning gets a lot of the credit. I'm one that says that you can bend just about any emotion from any tuning. (Look at all that has been done in 12 equal) However a piece like this would be a bit different in 13edo.

Chris
*

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Granner <chris@cgmusic.net>
Sender: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:04:50
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Raven Explore

Chris,

At the risk of "merely cheerleading": What a lovely piece. Thanks for sharing. Consciously-tuned music's toe-hold on the doorsill of the world's ear earns a bit more purchase!

-cg

On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:40 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

> Raven Explore is my first public composition in John O’Sullivan’s new Raven tuning. You can find out more about his tuning at his website http://www.johnsmusic7.com.
>
> The piece is listenable or downloadable here: http://chrisvaisvil.com/?p=2427
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> > ...can find out more about his tuning at his website
> > http://www.johnsmusic7.com

> ! raven.scl
> !
> John O'Sullivan's raven scale
> 12
> !
> 113.7177
> 197.1342
> 312.1318
> 389.8232
> 498.0450
> 577.4304
> 701.9550
> 811.8100
> 889.5014
> 967.2840
> 1081.4929
> 1200.0000
>

or the same again more preciesely for all those,
that want to prefer the the
aboriginally exact ratios behind the above cent approximations

! raven.scl
!
John O'Sullivan's raven scale
12
!
!1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
!
15/14 ! C# ~113.7177
9/8 ! D. ~197.1342
6/5 ! Eb ~312.1318
5/4 ! E. ~389.8232
4/3 ! F. ~498.0450
7/5 ! F# ~577.4304
3/2 ! G. ~701.9550
8/5 ! G# ~811.8100
5/3 ! A. ~889.5014
9/5 ! Bb ~967.2840
15/8 ! B. ~1081.4929
2/1
!
![eof]

bye
Andy

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> I don't think there are exact ratios behind all of them.

Sorry Gene,
for the confusion:
My remark should refer to John's second tuning down on his page:
http://www.johnsmusic7.com/
Quote:
"
Blue Just Tuning

1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1

Blue Temperament (in cents)
0.0, 121.6, 200.7, 313.5, 388.4, 501.2, 580.4, 702.0, 816.9, 889.4, 1012.5, 1085.1, 1200.0
"

! SullivanBlues.scl
!
John O'Sullivan's [2012] 'blues' scale
12
! the last tuning on: http://www.johnsmusic7.com/
!there as:"1/1 15/14 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 7/5 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1"
!
15/14 ! C# ~113.7177 [or enharmoic Db]
9/8 ! ! D. ~197.1342
6/5 ! ! Eb ~312.1318 [D#]
5/4 ! ! E. ~389.8232
4/3 ! ! F. ~498.0450
7/5 ! ! F# ~577.4304 [Gb]
3/2 ! ! G. ~701.9550
8/5 ! ! Ab ~811.8100 [D#]
5/3 ! ! A. ~889.5014
9/5 ! ! Bb ~967.2840 [A#]
15/8 !! B.~1081.4929
2/1
!
![eof]

But for his earlier mentioned "raven" i do
agree with yours statement:

> ...in terms of fifths, which you could write
> Db, Ab, Eb, F, C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, A#;
> that's the gamut from Db to F#,
> except in the place of Bb you put A#,
> giving you a major tetrad on C.
> That's not quite the raven scale either,
> but it gets a lot closer.
>
Quote:
"
12 Tone Raven Temperament (12TRT)

0.0, 113.7177, 197.1342, 312.1318, 389.8232, 498.045, 577.4304,
701.955, 811.81, 889.5014, 967.284, 1081.4929, 1200.0.
"
Using
http://www.mindspring.com/~alanh/fracs.html
or
http://superspace.epfl.ch/approximator/

it is possible to (re?)-convert the above given
'raven' cent-values into almost equivalent ratios,
within an accuracy in precision
better than 1-cent maximal
approximation-error in deviation
against the original values:

! rationalizedRaven
John O'Sullivan's [2012] 'Raven'-scale rationalized by A.Sparschuh
12
!
63/59 ! Db =~113.5642 < '113.7177' against original
28/25 ! D. =~196.1984 < '197.1342'
97/81 ! Eb =~312.0754 < '312.1318'
119/95 ! E. =~389.9545 > '389.8232'
4/3 ! F. =~498.0445 < '498.0450'
67/48 ! F# =~577.3520 < '577.4304'
3/2 ! G. =~701.9550 = '701.955'
179/112 ! Ab =~811.7530 < '811.81'
112/67 ! A. =~889.5188 > '889.5014'
278/159 ! A# =~967.2697 < '967.284'
28/15 ! B. =~1080.557 < '1081.4929'
2/1
!
![eof]

Circle of 5ths chain
analysis:

C: 1/1
|..............*(3/2)
G: 3/2
|..............*(3/4)*( 224/225 =~-7.7c downwards 5th G-D )
D: 28/25
|..............*(3/2)*( 200/201 =~-8.6c downwards 5th D-A )
A: 112/67
|..............*(3/4)*( 1139/1140 =~-1.5c downwards 5th A-E )
E: 119/95
|..............*(3/2)*( 152/153 =~-11.3c downwards 5th E-B )
B: 28/15
|..............*(3/4)*( 335/336 =~-5.2c downwards 5th B-F# )
F# 67/48
|~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/4)*( 4032/3953 =~+34.3c wide wolf-5th F#-Db sic!)
Db 63/59
|..............*(3/2)*( 10561/10584 =~-3.8c downwards 5th Db-Ab )
Ab 179/112
|..............*(3/2)*( 43456/43497 =~-1.6c downwards 5th Ab-Eb )
Eb 97/81
|~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/2)*( 5004/5151=~-46.8c narrow wolf-5th Eb-A# sic!)
A# 278/159
|~~~~~~???~~~~~*(3/4)*( 424/417 =~+28.8c wide wolf-5th A#-F sic!)
F: 4/3
|..............*(3/4)
C 1/1

Especially
here attend the three as questionable marked
'~~~~???~~~~' 5ths:
F#~Db, Eb-A# and A#~F
within the circle.

Ouest:
Is raven-birds rasping-sound in nature even
more clangourus than that dodgy-accunting?

Conclusion:
Finally now you convinced me,
that I made some disputable-presumptions
when guessing at random about ratios behind
the Sullivan's above 'raven' cent-values.

bye
Andy

🔗jdfreivald@...

Having read and reviewed John's original book, I'd bet money that he'd never have a ratio like 67/48 in any tuning he wanted to make. Furthermore, you can be pretty sure he wasn't engaged in any generator/period style of thinking that would get you to meantone. (This isn't to belittle Gene's comments, just to point out that it's a post hoc analysis.)

John's method previously involved using simple ratios and then using brute force computations to find tempered values within 256:255ths (a little under 7 cents) to maximize the number of consonances in the scale. A brief perusal of his Web site doesn't show anything that makes it appear that he has changed his core method.

In fact, since he has been open on his Web site about the scale values, I'm guessing that the ratios from Blue Just are the same ones used as the initial just values for Raven, with the exception that he has replaced 9/5 with 7/4.

Regards,
Jake

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, jdfreivald@... wrote:

>...for Raven, with the exception that he has replaced 9/5 with 7/4...

In deed Jake,

John has confirmed just that change to me in an private email:
"...the Bb interval should be 7/4 and not 9/5..."

> > 67/48 ! F# =~577.3520 < '577.4304'

> ...he'd never have a ratio like 67/48
> in any tuning he wanted to make...

The choice of the convergent in the
approximation series depends on how
precisely close one wants to fit the
original data:

7/5 = 1.4 [~582.5121 cents]
60/43 = 1.3953488372093024 [~576.751009 cents]
67/48 = 1.3958333333333333 my initial choice

Hence:
If you prefer less accuracy than ~1cents,
you can also apply 7/5 or 60/43 instead of 67/48.

bye
Andy

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, jdfreivald@... wrote:
>
> Having read and reviewed John's original book, I'd bet money that he'd never have a ratio like 67/48 in any tuning he wanted to make. Furthermore, you can be pretty sure he wasn't engaged in any generator/period style of thinking that would get you to meantone. (This isn't to belittle Gene's comments, just to point out that it's a post hoc analysis.)

Indeed it is. You can refine the analysis by finding the fifth which gets closest in the least-squares sense to raven, which turns out to be 696.771 cents. Since the fifth of raven is a pure 3/2 and the fourth a 4/3, that makes the G 5.184 cents flat, and the F the same amount sharp, and these are the big errors. Of course that makes some other intervals of raven worse than the meantone alternative.

Raven Explore

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

🔗Chris Granner <chris@...>

🔗chrisvaisvil@...

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗jdfreivald@...

🔗Andy <a_sparschuh@...>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>