Banaphshu -- please be less hasty lest you misunderstand

Banaphshu wrote,

>To my ear, these are extremely consonant chords, much more than your
western practice numerals would make you think.

I would say that 7:9:11 and similar chords have some degree of
_concordance_, and very much like styles of music (e.g., Partch) that
incorporate them; however, I would say that they would not be accepted where
augmented triads are written in a score of Gesualdo, Gluck, or Grieg.

>. I also don't understand your "research" concerning the subharmonic chords
for I have always heard them as consonant.

OK . . . I hear them as consonant too, but only to the extent that the
individual intervals are consonant . . . have you tried the examples that
Daniel Wolf posted comparing the 4:5:6:7:9 and 1/9:1/7:1/6:1/5:1/4 chords?
These chords contain exactly the same intervals, but with a timbre rich
enough in harmonic partials, say a sustained trumpet sound, the subharmonic
chord sounds more discordant (in my opinion, because of that "car horn" 7:9)
than the harmonic chord -- in fact Joseph perceived the subharmonic chord
followed by the harmonic chord as a powerful resolution.

I suspect we may be basing our judgments on vastly different timbres -- in
your case, metallophones or their wooden cousins perhaps?

>harmonically based chords many times just blend into a timbre.

Exactly. With metallophones and other types of instruments that are
primarily a sine wave with weak, possibly inharmonic, overtones, and maybe
some noise, a justly tuned otonal chord will blend into the sensation of a
single note, even if the fundamental of that note is physically absent. With
more complex timbres playing a "harmonically based" (otonal) chord, this
fundamental sensation will be very strong and provide a sense of order that
overwhelms the dissonance arising from any individual intervals. Play the
mirror-image of that chord (the "subharmonic" or utonal version), and any
dissonant intervals will noticeably spoil the consonance of the chord as a
whole.

>The problem must be with my ears as it is hard to imagine that science
could be mistaken.

I make references to "science" where I seek explanations for what I hear but
what I hear always comes first. My opinions on this matter are based on
extensive listening first, and then trying to understand what I hear in
terms of what is understood about the ear and brain -- never the other way
around.

Got to go now -- I think the best way to resolve these kinds of issues is
with listening experiments . . . if we make sure we are listening to the
exact same sounds, and everyone else can hear them too, then everyone can
decide on the possible merits of various points on the basis of what their
own ears tell them . . .