The message

---------- Mensaje reenviado ----------
From: Mario Pizarro Aguilar <piagui8@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:41:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: JUST INTONATION SCALE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keenan,

It is evident that your error was to ignore how to read a message
sent by a person who only wanted to serve you. If you take a look to
the data title, you will check that all the data I sent you correspond
to Piaji II scale and not to the JI scale whose proprieties you want
to know.

Besides, I am able to send you the Piaji i data which contain all the
details you have commented.

All the points you transcribed in your message correspond to Piaji I
scale. Precisely, two days ago I sent a message to a member of the
list, where I wrote that I was told that these JI scales don´t sound
well and as I remember, a copy of this message was sent to you. I
preferred to send you Piaji II instead of the one that might give
imperfect chords. This was my personal thinking, but i respect the
member´s opinion.

Your position of using the historical conclusions of Mr. Helmhozt
demonstrates nothing; should I got some similar propriety it comes
from your tendency of beeing against me. Therefore I can´t avoid to
suggest you not to ask me in the future any information. We, you and
I, deserve to have peaceful days.

Thanks

Mario

November 17
<<

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@...> wrote:
>
> It is evident that your error was to ignore how to read a message
> sent by a person who only wanted to serve you. If you take a look to
> the data title, you will check that all the data I sent you correspond
> to Piaji II scale and not to the JI scale whose proprieties you want
> to know.

I don't think that your reaction against Keenan is fair, but at any
rate, what's the correct scale?

It is true that no 12-note JI scale can have twelve perfect fifths per
octave; the chain of fifths will always fail to close at the octave by
the Pythagorean comma.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mario Pizarro" <piagui@...> wrote:
> Keenan,
>
> It is evident that your error was to ignore how to read a message
> sent by a person who only wanted to serve you. If you take a look to
> the data title, you will check that all the data I sent you correspond
> to Piaji II scale and not to the JI scale whose proprieties you want
> to know.

Oh, well can we please see the 12 notes of the correct scale then? I really want to see this JI scale with the 12 pure fifths (because I currently believe that's impossible for an octave-repeating JI scale with 12 notes per octave).

> Besides, I am able to send you the Piaji i data which contain all the
> details you have commented.

By all means, go ahead and do it then!

> All the points you transcribed in your message correspond to Piaji I
> scale. Precisely, two days ago I sent a message to a member of the
> list, where I wrote that I was told that these JI scales don´t sound
> well and as I remember, a copy of this message was sent to you. I
> preferred to send you Piaji II instead of the one that might give
> imperfect chords. This was my personal thinking, but i respect the
> member´s opinion.
>
> Your position of using the historical conclusions of Mr. Helmhozt
> demonstrates nothing; should I got some similar propriety it comes
> from your tendency of beeing against me. Therefore I can´t avoid to
> suggest you not to ask me in the future any information. We, you and
> I, deserve to have peaceful days.

I'm not using any "historical conclusions" of Hermann von Helmholtz - I merely referred to a regular temperament named in his honor, which also goes by the name of "schismatic". Perhaps I should just call it "schismatic" to avoid confusion.

I beg your pardon for making comments about the wrong scale; if you still think all your claims are true of some other scale I haven't seen yet, then let's see it as soon as possible so that (if you're correct), I'll have to "eat humble pie" and admit I was wrong that such a scale is impossible.

Keenan

   I get the feeling this falls along the lines of debating what is close enough to be a perfect fifth...and, obviously, it's not exactly 3/2 (which would result in said Pythagorean comma error) unless you plan to sabotage the octave and make an imperfect octave to achieve your goal.

   My question is what's the audible (if it is audible) difference between said 12-tone scale and 12EDO?

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] The message

 
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Mario Pizarro <piagui@...> wrote:
>
> It is evident that your error was to ignore how to read a message
> sent by a person who only wanted to serve you. If you take a look to
> the data title, you will check that all the data I sent you correspond
> to Piaji II scale and not to the JI scale whose proprieties you want
> to know.

I don't think that your reaction against Keenan is fair, but at any
rate, what's the correct scale?

It is true that no 12-note JI scale can have twelve perfect fifths per
octave; the chain of fifths will always fail to close at the octave by
the Pythagorean comma.

-Mike

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:59 AM, RR <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> I get the feeling this falls along the lines of debating what is close
> enough to be a perfect fifth...and, obviously, it's not exactly 3/2 (which
> would result in said Pythagorean comma error) unless you plan to sabotage
> the octave and make an imperfect octave to achieve your goal.

Well mathematically, if you want to temper out the pythagorean comma
to give yourself a chain of 12 approximate fifths that do, indeed,
close at the octave, and you also want to say that one of the
intervals in this chain is an approximate 5/4, then you've
mathematically limited yourself to one of two options

1) 12-EDO
2) a 12-note well-temperament

Both of these are represented by the val <12 19 28|, meaning that
however you tune things, you consider every 4\12 to be 5/4, every 7\12
to be 3/2, and every 5\12 to be 4/3.

> My question is what's the audible (if it is audible) difference between
> said 12-tone scale and 12EDO?

Well, if there are two 681 fifths and one 723 cent fifth, then it's
gonna be pretty damn audible, that's for sure. Like "get your piano
tuned" type audible.

-Mike