🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

8/13/2001 8:19:12 PM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
> /tuning/files/monz/blackjackintmat2.xls

What happened to "/" for pitches ":" for intervals?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

8/13/2001 8:35:33 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
> >
/tuning/files/monz/blackjackintmat2.xls
>
> What happened to "/" for pitches ":" for intervals?

I prepared this spreadsheet for David Beardsley's website, so kept to
his (and Partch's) convention of using "/" for everything. Don't
worry, I plan to continue using ":" for intervals in the future. In
fact, if you want, alter this spreadsheet, then send it to me, and
I'll re-upload it. I already sent David the "/" version in private e-
mail.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

8/14/2001 11:33:58 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /monz/blackjackintmat3.xls
Uploaded by : paul@stretch-music.com
Description : Blackjack interval matrix -- with ratios and cents deviations

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/monz/blackjackintmat3.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

genewardsmith@juno.com

🔗genewardsmith@juno.com

10/26/2001 11:53:34 AM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Gene/mattemp.mid
> Uploaded by : genewardsmith@j...
> Description : Materna, adaptive tempering
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/Gene/mattemp.mid

Check these out at your own risk--I started to upload last night, and
immediately Yahoo seemed to die on me. :)

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

10/26/2001 12:11:31 PM

Gene, this is very nice! I'd like to compare your tuning to my own,
but you've made it quite difficult. The piece is more or less in C
major, but you're forming your E with an Eb tuned 48 cents sharp against
a C tuned 38 cents flat. Could you possibly adjust the absolute tuning
so that the scale degrees are more reasonable?

Thanks,
JdL

🔗genewardsmith@juno.com

10/26/2001 12:15:11 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

> Gene, this is very nice! I'd like to compare your tuning to my own,
> but you've made it quite difficult. The piece is more or less in C
> major, but you're forming your E with an Eb tuned 48 cents sharp
against
> a C tuned 38 cents flat. Could you possibly adjust the absolute
tuning
> so that the scale degrees are more reasonable?

I uploaded 12-et, 22-et, and 7-limit versions also, and I thought you
could try adapting the 12-et and seeing how they compared.

🔗John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@adaptune.com>

10/26/2001 12:51:46 PM

[I wrote:]
>>Gene, this is very nice! I'd like to compare your tuning to my own,
>>but you've made it quite difficult. The piece is more or less in C
>>major, but you're forming your E with an Eb tuned 48 cents sharp
>>against a C tuned 38 cents flat. Could you possibly adjust the
>>absolute tuning so that the scale degrees are more reasonable?

[Gene:]
>I uploaded 12-et, 22-et, and 7-limit versions also, and I thought you
>could try adapting the 12-et and seeing how they compared.

Oh, kyool! That saves me _lots_ of work! Just uploaded my 7-limit
adaptive tuning of the 12-tET version, in the JdL directory of the files
area:

/tuning/files/JdL/mat12cr7.mid

I hear little difference between my 7-limit adaptive tuning and your
adaptive tuning; both sound very nice to my ear. Nice work!

JdL

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

10/26/2001 1:43:10 PM

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#29625

> > /tuning/files/Gene/mattemp.mid
>
> Check these out at your own risk--I started to upload last night,
and immediately Yahoo seemed to die on me. :)

How appropriate!

_______ ______ __________
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

10/26/2001 1:59:39 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#29636

>
> /tuning/files/JdL/mat12cr7.mid
>
> I hear little difference between my 7-limit adaptive tuning and your
> adaptive tuning; both sound very nice to my ear. Nice work!
>
> JdL

I don't hear any difference, either... Does Paul hear any difference??

_______ ________ _______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/26/2001 3:10:34 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/equaltemp.jpg
Uploaded by : paul@stretch-music.com
Description : Plot of ETs by 5-limit intervals

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/equaltemp.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

paul@stretch-music.com

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/26/2001 3:12:10 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/chord.mid
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : What does this sound like to y'all?

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/chord.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

10/26/2001 3:46:48 PM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /dawier/chord.mid
> Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> Description : What does this sound like to y'all?

Sounds roughly like 18:22:27:33. A "neutral seventh chord". Not my
favorite.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2001 11:14:38 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /monz/12tet.doc
Uploaded by : joemonz@yahoo.com
Description : How a Sumerian could approximate 12-tET

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/monz/12tet.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

joemonz@yahoo.com

🔗Danny Wier <dawier@yahoo.com>

10/29/2001 1:12:34 AM

It's a "neutral seventh" chord of sorts -- four notes each 1 3/4 steps apart in 12-equal (or 7 degrees in 24-equal).

My "ugly chord" I use for a rather disturbing effect, normally played by four trombones.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Erlich
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:46 PM
Subject: [tuning] Re: New file uploaded to tuning

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /dawier/chord.mid
> Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> Description : What does this sound like to y'all?

Sounds roughly like 18:22:27:33. A "neutral seventh chord". Not my
favorite.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/29/2001 2:43:10 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /docs/clampitt.pdf
Uploaded by : manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com
Description : Carey & Clampitt: Self-similar pitch structures, their duals and rhythmic analogues

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/docs/clampitt.pdf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

10/29/2001 6:12:47 AM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#29707
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/docs/clampitt.pdf
>
> Regards,
>
> manuel.op.de.coul@e...

Thanks so much, Manuel, for including this article in the files
section, since I was looking for it....

Joseph

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

10/29/2001 11:33:19 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "Danny Wier" <dawier@y...> wrote:
> It's a "neutral seventh" chord of sorts -- four notes each 1 3/4
steps apart in 12-equal (or 7 degrees in 24-equal).

Gee I was really really close, wasn't I?!

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/29/2001 2:03:44 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/equaltemp2.jpg
Uploaded by : paul@stretch-music.com
Description : Zoom-out of equaltemp.jpg

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/equaltemp2.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

paul@stretch-music.com

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/8/2001 10:58:09 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/badtriad.mid
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : J.S. Bach's Badinerie: Golden mean ratio in major triad

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/badtriad.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/8/2001 10:59:31 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/badfifth.mid
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : J.S. Bach's Badinerie: Golden mean ratio in fifth and octave

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/badfifth.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

11/9/2001 3:37:36 PM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /dawier/badfifth.mid
> Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> Description : J.S. Bach's Badinerie: Golden mean ratio in fifth
and octave
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/dawier/badfifth.mid

I love the arrangement, the instrumentation is quite beautiful, but
not the tuning. I'd _love_ to hear that in a Renaissance-styly
meantone temperament -- pick a random fifth between 695.8 and 697.4
cents.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/21/2001 8:06:10 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/natural.mid
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : A very short MIDI file playing the "octaves" in NET scales, which are of the ratio 2.7183:1.0000. (Would a better term be "undecade"?

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/natural.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/22/2001 10:08:57 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/toc-net.mid
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : Sergei Prokofiev -- Toccata Op. 11: Natural Equal Temperament, consnant e divided into 52 parts (very close to 36-tet), adapted to imitate 12-tet

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/toc-net.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/22/2001 10:16:25 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/52-net.rtf
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural Equal Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/52-net.rtf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

11/22/2001 10:25:11 PM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:

> File : /dawier/52-net.rtf
> Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural Equal
Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.

Pardon me if this seems rude, but what is so "Natural" about it?
Integer frequency ratios occur everywhere in nature, but a frequency
ratio of exp(1) = 2.7182818...? What's "natural" about that?

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/22/2001 10:55:59 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /dawier/101-net.rtf
Uploaded by : dawier@yahoo.com
Description : Tunings in cents of the 101-tone NET scale (70 per octave)

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/dawier/101-net.rtf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

dawier@yahoo.com

🔗Danny Wier <dawier@yahoo.com>

11/22/2001 11:00:17 PM

Natural logarithms.

~DaW~

From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>

> > Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> > Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural Equal
> Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.
>
> Pardon me if this seems rude, but what is so "Natural" about it?
> Integer frequency ratios occur everywhere in nature, but a frequency
> ratio of exp(1) = 2.7182818...? What's "natural" about that?

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗Dominique Larré <Dominique.Larre@wanadoo.fr>

11/23/2001 12:08:38 AM

Hello, e is 2.718281828459045...

I would agree that it is a "natural" for some mathematicians.

Greetings

Dominique

P.S. First post since I respectfully became a member. If my posting
procedure is either inefficient, or (worse) rude, please accept my apologies
and kindly refer me to the appropriate method.
= = =

----- Message d'origine -----
De : Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
ï¿½ : <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Envoyï¿½ : vendredi 23 novembre 2001 07:25
Objet : [tuning] Re: New file uploaded to tuning

> --- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > File : /dawier/52-net.rtf
> > Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> > Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural Equal
> Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.
>
> Pardon me if this seems rude, but what is so "Natural" about it?
> Integer frequency ratios occur everywhere in nature, but a frequency
> ratio of exp(1) = 2.7182818...? What's "natural" about that?
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold
for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/23/2001 1:23:39 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /docs/bjchords.txt
Uploaded by : manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com
Description : List of chords present in Blackjack

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/docs/bjchords.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com

🔗BobWendell@technet-inc.com

11/23/2001 9:06:43 AM

I think you must know this already, Paul, but some may not. The only
rationale, and it's non-musical, that I can see for it is that this
ratio is the base of the natural logarithms. For the inverse
function, it is the base that uniquely yields an exponential curve
whose slope is equal to its absolute value at every point along the
curve. It is found everywhere in nature, since it is a curve that
describes a rate of growth directly proportional to the size of
whatever is growing.

Such things as microbial population growth, radioactive decay, etc.
often follow this curve in one direction or the other. Why that
should recommend it for musical use is beyond my comprehension, but
maybe someone has some kind of ready defense for it. A truly valid
defense might be harder to come by. There are tons of natural
phenomena that conceivably could be misapplied to almost anything,
including music. In the meantime, may we all grow naturally and
exponentially in our comprehension, both musically and otherwise.

Respectfully,

Bob

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > File : /dawier/52-net.rtf
> > Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> > Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural Equal
> Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.
>
> Pardon me if this seems rude, but what is so "Natural" about it?
> Integer frequency ratios occur everywhere in nature, but a
frequency
> ratio of exp(1) = 2.7182818...? What's "natural" about that?

🔗Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

11/23/2001 11:21:50 AM

Sorry, you didn't answer the question. Yes, e is the base to which
natural logarithms are taken. How do you get from there to using e as
a frequency ratio?

--- In tuning@y..., "Danny Wier" <dawier@y...> wrote:
> Natural logarithms.
>
> ~DaW~
>
> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
>
> > > Uploaded by : dawier@y...
> > > Description : The tunings of the notes of 52-tone Natural
Equal
> > Temperament (NET), given in 12-tone ET cents.
> >
> > Pardon me if this seems rude, but what is so "Natural" about it?
> > Integer frequency ratios occur everywhere in nature, but a
frequency
> > ratio of exp(1) = 2.7182818...? What's "natural" about that?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

11/24/2001 3:13:42 PM

--- In tuning@y..., <tuning@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#30531

>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /docs/bjchords.txt
> Uploaded by : manuel.op.de.coul@e...
> Description : List of chords present in Blackjack
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/docs/bjchords.txt
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> manuel.op.de.coul@e...

This would be nice, Manuel, but I wish it were in the "standard
notation" that has been adopted for Blackjack.

Seriously, this entire business with Blackjack is getting so
exasperating that I'm seriously considering abandoning Blackjack as a
composing tool...

🔗genewardsmith@juno.com

11/24/2001 5:28:40 PM

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:

> Seriously, this entire business with Blackjack is getting so
> exasperating that I'm seriously considering abandoning Blackjack as
a
> composing tool...

Why not just ignore it? Your standard seems as good as any.

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

11/24/2001 5:31:13 PM

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#30666

> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Seriously, this entire business with Blackjack is getting so
> > exasperating that I'm seriously considering abandoning Blackjack
as
> a
> > composing tool...
>
> Why not just ignore it? Your standard seems as good as any.

Hmmm... Thanks so much, Gene, for the encouragement.

*DAVE KEENAN* are you reading this!!! :)

[just joking, of course... I appreciate all the help]

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

11/24/2001 9:47:49 PM

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
>
> > Seriously, this entire business with Blackjack is getting so
> > exasperating that I'm seriously considering abandoning Blackjack
as
> a
> > composing tool...
>
> Why not just ignore it? Your standard seems as good as any.

Gene,

I've said several times that Joseph should feel free to continue
composing with his existing system, and that there would always be
reasons for composers to use keys other than the standard one (e.g
writing for particular instruments, or using only certain chords or
subscales that would have more naturals in a different key).

But I suspect that by definition there can only be one "standard". At
least, having more than one standard tends to defeat the purpose,
which is to facilitate exchange. So are you arguing that Joseph's
current FCG should be _the_ standard, as opposed to CGDA?

If so, please explain what leads you to this conclusion? It's a shame
you didn't enter the discussion sooner, but I guess it's not too late
yet. Have you been following the entire discussion?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

🔗Dave Keenan <D.KEENAN@UQ.NET.AU>

11/24/2001 11:21:06 PM

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> This would be nice, Manuel, but I wish it were in the "standard
> notation" that has been adopted for Blackjack.

Done.

See
http://dkeenan.com/Music/Miracle/BlackjackChords.txt

🔗genewardsmith@juno.com

11/25/2001 3:15:13 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> But I suspect that by definition there can only be one "standard".
At
> least, having more than one standard tends to defeat the purpose,
> which is to facilitate exchange. So are you arguing that Joseph's
> current FCG should be _the_ standard, as opposed to CGDA?

No, I'm saying if he's comfortable with it, stick with it, since all
of the standards are easily translatable anyway.

> If so, please explain what leads you to this conclusion?

It can be justified on the grounds of familiarity, and I don't think
it greatly matters if it is the standard, or something else.

🔗genewardsmith@juno.com

11/25/2001 3:55:46 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

12/11/2001 4:17:33 AM

> File : /dawier/alphabet.GIF
> Uploaded by : DaWier <dawier@yahoo.com>
> Description : The Greek Alphabet (including archaic letters), to be used
for a new system of musical pitch notation

Now the explanation.

1/31/2002 7:27:50 PM

--- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33532

>
/tuning/files/perlich/scales/blackjackint
mat4.xls
>

****Well, I know I've said this before but *THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING
THING I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THE TUNING LISTS!*

Incredible!

Paul, you really have a genius for finding the *most direct* route to
a topic!!!

It's just *wonderful* that we can use *STANDARD* 12-tET terminology
in this chart so simply and easily. You have made it *incredibly*
direct!!!!!!!!

I only had one change: I've been used to using Db^ rather than C#^
and also Ab^ rather than G#^ and I took the liberty to change my
Excel sheet to reflect that.

I believe you said that Dave Keenan had some kind of "logic" in his
use of accidentals... Well, anyway, that's the way the Keenan
*lattice* is labeled, so I need to stick with that.

And, what a *beautiful* sheet! Really wonderful to look at. And
*clear*

I was going to ask why the chart started on E> but then I realized
that B[ is right in the *center* of the chart, and, if I understand
this correct, it's the "axis" of the tuning. (No, please, not in the
George Bush sense...)

However, where does that leave "G?" Wasn't "G" supposed to
be "something special" in this particular tuning key? I don't see
how that's reflected on the chart, particularly...

Just tremendous!

Anybody who accuses Paul again of being an "obscurantist" can meet me
outside back of my apartment building at 12:30 this evening for
some "instructions..."

THANKS AGAIN!

Joseph

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

1/31/2002 8:05:32 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33532

> I was going to ask why the chart started on E> but then I realized
> that B[ is right in the *center* of the chart, and, if I understand
> this correct, it's the "axis" of the tuning.

I'm so glad you noticed that, Josef!

> However, where does that leave "G?" Wasn't "G" supposed to
> be "something special" in this particular tuning key? I don't see
> how that's reflected on the chart, particularly...

The G-D dyad is at the "nexus" of the harmonic lattice. You'll see
that G and D together form a reflectively-symmetrical pair about the
center, B[.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

1/31/2002 8:20:38 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33548

>
> > However, where does that leave "G?" Wasn't "G" supposed to
> > be "something special" in this particular tuning key? I don't
see
> > how that's reflected on the chart, particularly...
>
> The G-D dyad is at the "nexus" of the harmonic lattice. You'll see
> that G and D together form a reflectively-symmetrical pair about
the center, B[.

***Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm getting this. Well, G and D are the same
number of steps away from B[... (6) but then all the "other" pairs
are symmetrical, too, no? like even Bb^ and Bv...

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

1/31/2002 9:52:58 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33548
>
> >
> > > However, where does that leave "G?" Wasn't "G" supposed to
> > > be "something special" in this particular tuning key? I don't
> see
> > > how that's reflected on the chart, particularly...
> >
> > The G-D dyad is at the "nexus" of the harmonic lattice. You'll
see
> > that G and D together form a reflectively-symmetrical pair about
> the center, B[.
>
> ***Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm getting this. Well, G and D are the
same
> number of steps away from B[... (6) but then all the "other" pairs
> are symmetrical, too, no? like even Bb^ and Bv...

Yes. Now look at the lattice, which you already have printed out, from

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/Miracle/Blackjack7LatticeGD.gif

again, and notice how G and D form more connections with other notes,
than any other notes. In the 7-limit, they each have 10 connections
with other notes, which you can see by adding up the number of red,
orange, and yellow cells in either the row or column in either G or D
in blackjackintmat4.xls

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

2/1/2002 1:49:44 AM

> From: jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:27 PM
> Subject: [tuning] THIS IS AMAZING! [Blackjack}
>
>
> Anybody who accuses Paul again of being an "obscurantist" can meet me
> outside back of my apartment building at 12:30 this evening for
> some "instructions..."

Wow, that's an awfully late "evening", isn't it, Joe? ;-)

And I agree with you -- Paul's new Blackjack interval matrix
chart is DA BOMB!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 7:01:02 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33551

> Yes. Now look at the lattice, which you already have printed out,
from
>
> http://www.uq.net.au/~zzdkeena/Music/Miracle/Blackjack7LatticeGD.gif
>
> again, and notice how G and D form more connections with other
notes, than any other notes. In the 7-limit, they each have 10
connections with other notes, which you can see by adding up the
number of red, orange, and yellow cells in either the row or column
in either G or D in blackjackintmat4.xls

****Hi Paul.

Yes, I can see this now, thanks!

There is only one thing that makes me sad. The colors in the Keenan
lattice chart don't match the colors of your matrix.

I suppose it's too late to do anything about this now... ?? :(

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 7:19:27 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33555

>
> ****Hi Paul.
>
> Yes, I can see this now, thanks!
>
> There is only one thing that makes me sad. The colors in the
Keenan lattice chart don't match the colors of your matrix.
>
> I suppose it's too late to do anything about this now... ?? :(
>
> Joseph

****Hi Paul

Actually, I would try to change the colors, *myself* on the Excel
sheet, but I'm afraid I might *mess something up..."

Also, of course, it's possible that the colors could change on the
Keenan Blackjack lattice as well. Actually, that was originally
*your* lattice!

If I recall, you mentioned that that colors were chosen *very*
carefully and that different composite ratios made composite colors.

Could you please run that by me again, I'm forgetting the specifics...

If so, then I guess the Excel chart should change to conform to the
carefully chosen lattice.

I guess there are only two colors on the Keenan/Erlich lattice that
don't show up too well:

There's a great similarity between the 3-limit red and the "minor
third" red which looks almost identical when printed on about any
printer I try.

Should that be better differentiated, or is there a compelling reason
(vis a vis the "composite" ratios) to select those particular colors?

Anyway, it would be great to optimize these two charts in terms of
color and standardization, since I have the feeling I will be using
both of them together in my composing for, possibly, several years...

Thanks!

Joseph

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

2/1/2002 8:23:30 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33532
>
> >
>
/tuning/files/perlich/scales/blackjackint
> mat4.xls
> >
>
> ****Well, I know I've said this before but *THIS IS THE MOST
AMAZING
> THING I HAVE EVER SEEN ON THE TUNING LISTS!*
>
> Incredible!
>
> Paul, you really have a genius for finding the *most direct* route
to
> a topic!!!
>
> It's just *wonderful* that we can use *STANDARD* 12-tET terminology
> in this chart so simply and easily. You have made it *incredibly*
> direct!!!!!!!!
>
> ... THANKS AGAIN!
>
> Joseph

Congratulations, Paul! I share every bit of the enthusiasm that
Joseph (and others) have expressed in appreciation of a very
effective diagram.

Of special interest to me was the color correlation with numerical
ratios, which is very close to what I have been using for some of my
own diagrams, including the original version of my 72-EDO octave
diagram, in which colored vertical lines identify groups of ratios.
(The one that I put out there is monochrome, because the file size
that way is much smaller.) There are two basic differences in our
choice of colors:

1) Since I had a white background on which to put the colored lines,
white was not a color choice; and

2) I used a harmonic limit higher than 11.

These were my color selections (ratio groups followed by color):

1 -- black (but if you are doing background colors for black
lettering, I would go with white, just as you did!)
3 -- red
5 -- orange
7 -- medium golden brown (i.e., having a yellow chroma, only darker
for better contrast with a white background; but again, for a
background color, it would be yellow!)
9 -- green
11 -- cyan (rendered a little darker, for better contrast with white
background)
13 -- powder blue (halfway between cyan and additive primary blue,
just as orange is about halfway between red and yellow)
15 -- primary blue (additive; having no green component, this is
quite dark, almost indigo, and it looks like what you used for ratios
of 11)
17 & 19 -- violet (halfway between additive primary blue and magenta;
I lumped these two primes together, because their intervals sound
very similar)
>19 -- magenta (you call this color purple in your spreadsheet, and I
think all the heavy-beating intervals for which you used it will fall
into this category)

If you changed your blue background to cyan for ratios of 11 (which
would make those cells much easier to read), we would be very close
to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
ratios. (I haven't taken the time to check, but perhaps some of the
everything else/gray category will be ratios of 15 or will bridge to
ratios of 17 and 19, particularly if you did something like this for
Canasta and Studloco.)

What do you think?

--George

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 8:53:41 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33557

> If you changed your blue background to cyan for ratios of 11 (which
> would make those cells much easier to read), we would be very close
> to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
> ratios. (I haven't taken the time to check, but perhaps some of
the everything else/gray category will be ratios of 15 or will bridge
to ratios of 17 and 19, particularly if you did something like this
for Canasta and Studloco.)
>

****Thank you so *very* much for your contribution, George, and I'm
eagerly awaiting Paul's response to all this.

It would truly be *great* if we could establish some kind of color
*standard* for ratios. It's not so much that I like to "standardize"
everything (which might make life bland!) but that I would like
something that I could *get used to* or familiarize myself with for
quick identification in both Paul's work and your own...

Joseph

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

2/1/2002 10:48:33 AM

> From: gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 8:23 AM
> Subject: [tuning] A Color Standard for Ratios? WAS: THIS IS AMAZING!
[Blackjack}
>
>
> If you changed your blue background to cyan for ratios of 11 (which
> would make those cells much easier to read), we would be very close
> to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
> ratios. (I haven't taken the time to check, but perhaps some of the
> everything else/gray category will be ratios of 15 or will bridge to
> ratios of 17 and 19, particularly if you did something like this for
> Canasta and Studloco.)
>
> What do you think?

I think it's great that some of us are attempting to create a
standardization between color and sound! Too bad I haven't been
more involved in it, because I've given a lot of thought to
this myself over the years I've spent making diagrams.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 12:00:46 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33559

>
> I think it's great that some of us are attempting to create a
> standardization between color and sound! Too bad I haven't been
> more involved in it, because I've given a lot of thought to
> this myself over the years I've spent making diagrams.
>

****Well, Monz... it's happening right *now* so why don't you add
your input! Paul hasn't gotten back yet, but he will soon.

best,

Joe

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

2/1/2002 12:02:28 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33557
>
> > If you changed your blue background to cyan for ratios of 11
(which
> > would make those cells much easier to read), we would be very
close
> > to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
> > ratios. ...
> >
>
> ****Thank you so *very* much for your contribution, George, and I'm
> eagerly awaiting Paul's response to all this.
>
> It would truly be *great* if we could establish some kind of color
> *standard* for ratios. It's not so much that I like
to "standardize"
> everything (which might make life bland!) but that I would like
> something that I could *get used to* or familiarize myself with for
> quick identification in both Paul's work and your own...
>
> Joseph

Joseph,

Perhaps "convention" would be a better choice of words
than "standard" for correlating ratios with colors, inasmuch as:

1) There is no inherently "right" way to do this; and

2) The term "standard" implies a broad-based acceptance of whatever
is being standardized.

Both Paul and I chose to establish a correlation between the order of
odd numbers with that of spectral hues, and, fortunately, we both
started from the same end of the spectrum. There is something good
about instances such as this, when one or the other person could be
considered to have "reinvented the wheel": Insofar as the two agree,
each person's work serves as a valuable affirmation or confirmation
of the other's, in addition to pointing out underlying principles of
logic that transcend each person's work taken separately. An
occurrence such as this contributes a stamp of legitimacy on
something that, advanced by one person alone, might otherwise be
judged as completely arbitrary or capricious at best.

Change of Subject:

Now just for fun, here's a similar but somewhat different question:
What color is the pitch represented by middle "C"? (My answer:
green) And the follow-up question for any of you out there to
answer: If so, why, and if not, why not?

This is an experiment to see what sort of answers we can come up
with, if any two will be the same, whether there is any sort of
transcending logic behind any of them, and whether there is any
objective standard by which my answer can be judged right or wrong.
There is a story connected with this concerning someone else who gave
the same answer to this question that I did, but for an entirely
different reason. And that other person's reason happens to involve
a topic that was discussed at some length on the Tuning List last
spring. I hope I've aroused a lot of curiousity about this, because
I think a few of us could use a little diversion from other, more
serious topics at this point.

Stay tuned!

--George

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 12:19:28 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33561
>
> Joseph,
>
> Perhaps "convention" would be a better choice of words
> than "standard" for correlating ratios with colors, inasmuch as:
>
> 1) There is no inherently "right" way to do this; and
>
> 2) The term "standard" implies a broad-based acceptance of whatever
> is being standardized.
>

****Thanks you, George! This is a *much* better word for this. My
idea behind this is not to *restrict* things, but just to have
something familiar to "grab on" to. In the strange new world of
Xenharmonics, I crave some familiar "guideposts."

Speaking of which, I'm glad Dave Keenan decided to retain the note
*C* in Blackjack, or we would have no "Middle C" to compare your
color game to... :) Also, I convinced Dave, much against his will,
to make me a keyboard that leaves Blackjack "Middle C" on the
keyboard note "Middle C..." :)

Now as to your game (I'm feeling Scriabinesque at the moment) I would
say *go with green...* for Middle C. Dunno why.... There are
several other colors that it definitely *shouldn't* be..

Joseph

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/1/2002 1:56:29 PM

Hi George and Joseph!

First of all, George, 72-tET is only unique through the 11-limit (for
example, 13:12 and 14:13 are approximated by the same 72-tET
interval), and only consistent through the 17-limit (for example,
when playing a 8:13:19 chord, there's no way to use the best 72-tET
approximations to all three intervals), so I can't see an immediate
use for the further colors you proposed.

Secondly, Joseph, I like the idea of having matching colors between
the lattice and the interval matrix. However, I used
broader "categories" in the interval matrix, as you can see.
Subdividing these categories into all their interval classes would
probably involve using more colors than I could be sure your printer
would distinguish.

However, it would be quite simple to make the two match if you're not
interested in special colors for the ratios of 9 or the ratios of 11,
which are not shown on the lattice anyway. Is this your desire?

> 15 -- primary blue (additive; having no green component, this is
> quite dark, almost indigo, and it looks like what you used for
ratios
> of 11)
> 17 & 19 -- violet (halfway between additive primary blue and
magenta;
> I lumped these two primes

You mean "odds", I think . ..

> >19 -- magenta (you call this color purple in your spreadsheet, and
I
> think all the heavy-beating intervals for which you used it will
fall
> into this category)

As ratios of the odd number 19? That's not correct :( The heavy-
beating intervals I marked are 72-tET's representations of 64:63 and
63:32. But maybe you didn't mean 19 after all, since you lumped it
with 17 above -- so I'm confused.

> we would be very close
> to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
> ratios.

Unfortunately, it sounds like Joseph would have an easier time with
each and every _interval class_, rather than "odd limit", getting
it's own color

> (I haven't taken the time to check, but perhaps some of the
> everything else/gray category will be ratios of 15

Yes, many are.

> or will bridge to
> ratios of 17 and 19, particularly if you did something like this
for
> Canasta and Studloco.)

I did do a Blackjack version with ratios (it's in the Files folder of
this group, I referred to it yesterday and will give you the URL
again if you like), and each gray square got two different ratios (I
distributed the pair arbitrarily among the pair of cells for the
interval and its inversion), but I stuck to a prime limit of 11. I
don't find ratios of 13 or higher to have an audible "attraction" as
dyads, only in larger otonal chords, so I don't feel they really
belong in a dyad (interval) matrix. The ratios that I did put in for
the dissonant intervals, at least, can be derived from the ratios of
consonant intervals that add up to those dissonant intervals . . .

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/1/2002 2:00:13 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Change of Subject:
>
> Now just for fun, here's a similar but somewhat different question:
> What color is the pitch represented by middle "C"? (My answer:
> green) And the follow-up question for any of you out there to
> answer: If so, why, and if not, why not?

Well, I'm guessing you just transposed the sound-pressure frequency
of C up enough octaves so that it corresponded to a visible
electromagnetic frequency, which turned out to be green. If so, I
just met someone the other day who did this, and so have lots of
people who posted to this list in the past.

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

2/1/2002 2:41:40 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Hi George and Joseph!
>
> First of all, George, 72-tET is only unique through the 11-limit
(for
> example, 13:12 and 14:13 are approximated by the same 72-tET
> interval), and only consistent through the 17-limit (for example,
> when playing a 8:13:19 chord, there's no way to use the best 72-tET
> approximations to all three intervals), so I can't see an immediate
> use for the further colors you proposed.

I wasn't intending to limit the use of this color convention only for
72-ET, which is why I was including 13, 15, 17, and 19. Perhaps the
best approach would be to use the dedicated colors up to the
applicable harmonic consonant limit (here 11) and use one or two
other colors to designate the remaining tones (such as you have done
with gray and magenta).

> Secondly, Joseph, I like the idea of having matching colors between
> the lattice and the interval matrix. However, I used
> broader "categories" in the interval matrix, as you can see.
> Subdividing these categories into all their interval classes would
> probably involve using more colors than I could be sure your
printer
> would distinguish.
>
> However, it would be quite simple to make the two match if you're
not
> interested in special colors for the ratios of 9 or the ratios of
11,
> which are not shown on the lattice anyway. Is this your desire?
>
> > 15 -- primary blue (additive; having no green component, this is
> > quite dark, almost indigo, and it looks like what you used for
> ratios
> > of 11)
> > 17 & 19 -- violet (halfway between additive primary blue and
> magenta;
> > I lumped these two primes
>
> You mean "odds", I think . ..
>

Odds it is! (And may the odds be with you.)

>
> > >19 -- magenta (you call this color purple in your spreadsheet,
and
> I
> > think all the heavy-beating intervals for which you used it will
> fall
> > into this category)
>
> As ratios of the odd number 19? That's not correct :( The heavy-
> beating intervals I marked are 72-tET's representations of 64:63
and
> 63:32. But maybe you didn't mean 19 after all, since you lumped it
> with 17 above -- so I'm confused.

I shot from the hip without taking a good look at this. Right you
are! (Even if it's a little refreshing to be the source of confusion
for a change, maybe I should stick to my think-it-through style.)

> > we would be very close
> > to establishing a color standard for identifying categories of
> > ratios.
>
> Unfortunately, it sounds like Joseph would have an easier time with
> each and every _interval class_, rather than "odd limit", getting
> it's own color
>
> > (I haven't taken the time to check, but perhaps some of the
> > everything else/gray category will be ratios of 15
>
> Yes, many are.
>
> > or will bridge to
> > ratios of 17 and 19, particularly if you did something like this
> for
> > Canasta and Studloco.)
>
> I did do a Blackjack version with ratios (it's in the Files folder
of
> this group, I referred to it yesterday and will give you the URL
> again if you like), and each gray square got two different ratios
(I
> distributed the pair arbitrarily among the pair of cells for the
> interval and its inversion), but I stuck to a prime limit of 11. I
> don't find ratios of 13 or higher to have an audible "attraction"
as
> dyads, only in larger otonal chords, so I don't feel they really
> belong in a dyad (interval) matrix. The ratios that I did put in
for
> the dissonant intervals, at least, can be derived from the ratios
of
> consonant intervals that add up to those dissonant intervals . . .

Anyway, if you all you do is replace the blue with cyan for ratios of
11, you are then consistent with a convention that leaves the door
open for situations where odd numbers above 11 could be assigned to
the next 3 colors in order. That's about all I'm really asking for.

--George

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/1/2002 3:29:32 PM

I wrote,

> > Unfortunately, it sounds like Joseph would have an easier time
with
> > each and every _interval class_, rather than "odd limit", getting
> > its own color

George wrote,

> Anyway, if you all you do is replace the blue with cyan for ratios
of
> 11, you are then consistent with a convention that leaves the door
> open for situations where odd numbers above 11 could be assigned to
> the next 3 colors in order. That's about all I'm really asking for.

I would be more than happy to oblige, but see above -- I think Joseph
specifically wants the colors to match those in the lattice. So I'm
about to post a new version of the interval matrix where this is the
case. Joseph mentioned that the "magenta" connections in the lattice
were difficult to distinguish, after printing, from the red
connections, so I'm changing "magenta" to purple in the lattice, and
the interval matrix will continue to reflect this as well.

Actually, I think this is all a rather specialized concern, as others
have complained in the past, so I'm starting a new group,
miracle_tuning@yahoogroups.com . . . and I will put the newly-colored
lattice and interval matrix up there.

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/1/2002 5:09:06 PM

I wrote,

> Actually, I think this is all a rather specialized concern, as
others
> have complained in the past

Here's my evidence for this:

/tuning/surveys?id=688583

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/1/2002 6:27:21 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33563

> Hi George and Joseph!
>
> First of all, George, 72-tET is only unique through the 11-limit
(for
> example, 13:12 and 14:13 are approximated by the same 72-tET
> interval), and only consistent through the 17-limit (for example,
> when playing a 8:13:19 chord, there's no way to use the best 72-tET
> approximations to all three intervals), so I can't see an immediate
> use for the further colors you proposed.
>
> Secondly, Joseph, I like the idea of having matching colors between
> the lattice and the interval matrix. However, I used
> broader "categories" in the interval matrix, as you can see.
> Subdividing these categories into all their interval classes would
> probably involve using more colors than I could be sure your
printer
> would distinguish.
>
> However, it would be quite simple to make the two match if you're
not interested in special colors for the ratios of 9 or the ratios of
11, which are not shown on the lattice anyway. Is this your desire?
>

*****Yes, that should be fine.

I see you've already started to do this on the new "miracle" group
you've started... which probably is a good idea since it *is* such a
specialized interest.

I'll join you for further discussion over there...

Joseph

🔗Guiseppi Mendoza <guiseppi@mendozadil.freeserve.co.uk>

2/1/2002 7:43:41 PM

On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:27:50 -0000, SOMEONE articulated, I'd better
not say who :

>--- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:
>
>/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33532

Nice speech, but I can't even access the file, even though I signed up
with dis' machine not long ago..... (and I can't be arsed resigning,
again)

"If I had twice the time, half the work done"

http://www.ampcast.com/guiseppimendoza
http://www.ampfea.org/sln/browse.php?num=3&a_id=132

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/2/2002 6:01:22 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> These were my color selections (ratio groups followed by color):
>
> 1 -- black
> 3 -- red
> 5 -- orange
> 7 -- medium golden brown (i.e., having a yellow chroma, only darker
> for better contrast with a white background; but again, for a
> background color, it would be yellow!)
> 9 -- green
> 11 -- cyan (rendered a little darker, for better contrast with
white
> background)

I have followed this color scheme as well as I could here:

/tuning/files/perlich/secor.gif

I hope you enjoy this, but there's a lot more in store, and only Monz
knows what I'm ultimately developing this into . . .

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/2/2002 12:33:37 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33578

> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > These were my color selections (ratio groups followed by color):
> >
> > 1 -- black
> > 3 -- red
> > 5 -- orange
> > 7 -- medium golden brown (i.e., having a yellow chroma, only
darker
> > for better contrast with a white background; but again, for a
> > background color, it would be yellow!)
> > 9 -- green
> > 11 -- cyan (rendered a little darker, for better contrast with
> white
> > background)
>
> I have followed this color scheme as well as I could here:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor.gif
>
> I hope you enjoy this, but there's a lot more in store, and only
Monz
> knows what I'm ultimately developing this into . . .

****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.

I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni and
Varese....

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

2/2/2002 3:36:52 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> I only had one change: I've been used to using Db^ rather than C#^
> and also Ab^ rather than G#^ and I took the liberty to change my
> Excel sheet to reflect that.
>
> I believe you said that Dave Keenan had some kind of "logic" in his
> use of accidentals... Well, anyway, that's the way the Keenan
> *lattice* is labeled, so I need to stick with that.

Yes, Db^ and and Ab^ are preferable for two reasons.
1. All the neutral thirds are then spelled as thirds.
2. Having only b^ and #v, and never bv or #^, makes sight reading
errors less likely.

If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then so be
it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the JI-basis
that is the raison detre for Blackjack. At least with the 6x12
notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or a
12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems to
be one or the other.

Doesn't a 4:5:6 chord sound like a _properly_tuned_ major triad to
you, rather than sounding like a "twelfth high major triad"? It's the
12-tET major third that sounds wide, not the 4:5. etc. etc.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/2/2002 4:36:19 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33584

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > I only had one change: I've been used to using Db^ rather than
C#^
> > and also Ab^ rather than G#^ and I took the liberty to change my
> > Excel sheet to reflect that.
> >
> > I believe you said that Dave Keenan had some kind of "logic" in
his
> > use of accidentals... Well, anyway, that's the way the Keenan
> > *lattice* is labeled, so I need to stick with that.
>
> Yes, Db^ and and Ab^ are preferable for two reasons.
> 1. All the neutral thirds are then spelled as thirds.
> 2. Having only b^ and #v, and never bv or #^, makes sight reading
> errors less likely.
>

****Thanks, Dave. Then it seems Paul should change these on his
charts... (I already did it for *mine* but not on the "posted" ones,
of course...)

> If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then so
be it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the JI-
basis that is the raison detre for Blackjack. At least with the 6x12
> notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or a
> 12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems to
> be one or the other.
>
> Doesn't a 4:5:6 chord sound like a _properly_tuned_ major triad to
> you, rather than sounding like a "twelfth high major triad"? It's
the 12-tET major third that sounds wide, not the 4:5. etc. etc.

****Hi Dave...

(That should be a "twelfth LOW major triad" yes??)

Ummmm not so sure about that one. In my "new* thinking it *is* the
major triad that is out of tune! We're so used to the 12-tET one as
a base that G-Bv-D seems *very* natural to me as the way
things "should" be as a proper "correction." And I *guarantee* that
most traditionally-trained performers would feel the same way.

Dumb, maybe, but the *tradition...*

Our *BASIC* system is fundamentally "out of tune" and these altered
charts show it. That's why the entire field and even this list (!)
is called "alternate tuning."

Otherwise it would be called "tuning" and 12-tET would be
the "alternate" but it doesn't work that way! Whether it *should* or
not is another matter, but I believe virtually *all* musicians
(except perhaps a handful of xenharmonic specialists) have these same
preconceptions...

Of course there are still a *lot* of people around who feel that
all "alternate tunings" are out of tune... some of such types even
appear on this list occasionally and usually briefly, but at least
*that* attitude we can dismiss... :)

So 12-tET nomenclature is "out of tune" as shown by these clear
charts...

Joseph

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/2/2002 8:16:58 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

> If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then
so be
> it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the JI-basis
> that is the raison detre for Blackjack.

but your system, based on a 5-limit interpretation of diatonic
intervals, is only well-suited for systems where 81:80 is
tempered out. otherwise it develops ugly 'kinks' much like ben
johnston's pitch notation.

> At least with the 6x12
> notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or a
> 12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems
to
> be one or the other.

why is that?

> Doesn't a 4:5:6 chord sound like a _properly_tuned_ major
triad to
> you, rather than sounding like a "twelfth high major triad"? It's
the
> 12-tET major third that sounds wide, not the 4:5. etc. etc.

any trained western musician (myself included, until i started
experimenting with alternate tunings) will hear the 12-equal
major third as "correct", and the 4:5 as narrow. one can spend a
few weeks in an alternate tuning system and then that will sound
"correct". it's true that nothing beats [no pun intended] the
wonderful blending of pure thirds, once you've experienced it, but

(a) a diatonic notation or interval naming system will only capture
these pure thirds in a "kink-free" way in meantone tunings --
tunings where 81:80 is tempered out;

(b) most performers of modern music on traditional instruments
are products of a 12-equal world; these intervals are their
'landmarks' (consider they way wind instruments are designed,
for example) and, as our great interest in an equal temperament
as large as 72 really only came from an expression of interest by
composers in preserving the 'landmarks', it would seem
perverse to attempt to move those landmarks now.

western diatonic common-practice music arose in meantone
temperament. too bad the meantone era is gone and essentially
forgotten. music marches forward, not backward. we can only
hope to build new musical practices upon those musicians
already use, and use today -- otherwise we're going to wind up in
an isolated corner.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/2/2002 8:44:51 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33589

> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
>
> > If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then
> so be
> > it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the JI-
basis
> > that is the raison detre for Blackjack.
>
> but your system, based on a 5-limit interpretation of diatonic
> intervals, is only well-suited for systems where 81:80 is
> tempered out. otherwise it develops ugly 'kinks' much like ben
> johnston's pitch notation.
>
> > At least with the 6x12
> > notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or
a
> > 12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems
> to
> > be one or the other.
>
> why is that?
>
> > Doesn't a 4:5:6 chord sound like a _properly_tuned_ major
> triad to
> > you, rather than sounding like a "twelfth high major triad"? It's
> the
> > 12-tET major third that sounds wide, not the 4:5. etc. etc.
>
> any trained western musician (myself included, until i started
> experimenting with alternate tunings) will hear the 12-equal
> major third as "correct", and the 4:5 as narrow. one can spend a
> few weeks in an alternate tuning system and then that will sound
> "correct". it's true that nothing beats [no pun intended] the
> wonderful blending of pure thirds, once you've experienced it, but
>
> (a) a diatonic notation or interval naming system will only capture
> these pure thirds in a "kink-free" way in meantone tunings --
> tunings where 81:80 is tempered out;
>
> (b) most performers of modern music on traditional instruments
> are products of a 12-equal world; these intervals are their
> 'landmarks' (consider they way wind instruments are designed,
> for example) and, as our great interest in an equal temperament
> as large as 72 really only came from an expression of interest by
> composers in preserving the 'landmarks', it would seem
> perverse to attempt to move those landmarks now.
>
> western diatonic common-practice music arose in meantone
> temperament. too bad the meantone era is gone and essentially
> forgotten. music marches forward, not backward. we can only
> hope to build new musical practices upon those musicians
> already use, and use today -- otherwise we're going to wind up in
> an isolated corner.

***I couldn't possibly agree more with Paul here... Paul is speaking
as a *practical* *music-making* musician here...

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

2/2/2002 10:21:36 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> > If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then so
> be it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the JI-
> basis that is the raison detre for Blackjack. At least with the 6x12
> > notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or a
> > 12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems to
> > be one or the other.
> >
> > Doesn't a 4:5:6 chord sound like a _properly_tuned_ major triad to
> > you, rather than sounding like a "twelfth high major triad"? It's
> the 12-tET major third that sounds wide, not the 4:5. etc. etc.
>
>
> ****Hi Dave...
>
> (That should be a "twelfth LOW major triad" yes??)

Yes. Sorry.

> Ummmm not so sure about that one. In my "new* thinking it *is* the
> major triad that is out of tune!

Er _which_ one are you calling the major triad here. For me, the only
reason 0c:400c:700c is called a major triad in 12-tET is because it's
an acceptable approximation _and_ it's the _only_ approximation
available.

Should we refer to the 1/4 comma meantone major third (4:5) as a
twelfth-low major third too?

> We're so used to the 12-tET one as
> a base that G-Bv-D seems *very* natural to me as the way
> things "should" be as a proper "correction." And I *guarantee* that
> most traditionally-trained performers would feel the same way.

You've lost me here. We're gonna have to be real careful with our
communication here since now there are two different intervals vying
for the description "major third" (and lots of other intervals).

You seem to be saying that G-Bv-D is a "correct" major triad, but you
want to call it a twelfth-low major triad. Seems a contradiction.

> Dumb, maybe, but the *tradition...*
>
> Our *BASIC* system is fundamentally "out of tune" and these altered
> charts show it. That's why the entire field and even this list (!)
> is called "alternate tuning."
>
> Otherwise it would be called "tuning" and 12-tET would be
> the "alternate" but it doesn't work that way! Whether it *should*
or
> not is another matter, but I believe virtually *all* musicians
> (except perhaps a handful of xenharmonic specialists) have these
same
> preconceptions...
>
> Of course there are still a *lot* of people around who feel that
> all "alternate tunings" are out of tune... some of such types even
> appear on this list occasionally and usually briefly, but at least
> *that* attitude we can dismiss... :)
>
> So 12-tET nomenclature is "out of tune" as shown by these clear
> charts...

And so, you want to base your interval nomenclature on those that are
out of tune? I still don't get it. Why?

I'd be saying to the musicians, "No. Not a 12-tET major third, we
don't have to put up with that crap any longer. We want a real true
just proper pure major third. You know, the kind you can tune by ear.
The barbershop harmony kind. _That's_ what we call a major third in
_this_ scale."

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

2/2/2002 10:29:03 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
>
> > If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then
> so be
> > it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the
JI-basis
> > that is the raison detre for Blackjack.
>
> but your system, based on a 5-limit interpretation of diatonic
> intervals, is only well-suited for systems where 81:80 is
> tempered out. otherwise it develops ugly 'kinks' much like ben
> johnston's pitch notation.

Surely this only happens if you try to _apply_ it as a pitch notation.
Please give some exaples of "ugly kinks".

> > At least with the 6x12
> > notation for pitches you could sort of read it in a JI manner or a
> > 12-tET manner as it suited you, but the interval notation seems
> to
> > be one or the other.
>
> why is that?

I don't know.

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/3/2002 12:01:00 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> ****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.
>
> I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni and
> Varese....
>
> JP

There is one ratio missing from the chart. Can you find it? In
searching, you may discover some beautiful things.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/3/2002 6:47:45 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33602

>
> Er _which_ one are you calling the major triad here. For me, the
only reason 0c:400c:700c is called a major triad in 12-tET is because
it's an acceptable approximation _and_ it's the _only_ approximation
> available.

****Hi Dave.

Sure, this is logically true. However, in the paragraph above you
say "the only reason Oc:400c:700c *is* called a major triad..."

That's the crux of it. Whether it makes any sense or not that *is*
what it's called by almost all practicing musicians today, since
virtually *all* of them work in 12-tET. I believe Paul Erlich has
pointed to studies that show that even *string* players, since the
advent of many works with strings and piano, particularly, tend to
play in 12-tET, even though one might think they would play in just
or Pythagorean.

>
> Should we refer to the 1/4 comma meantone major third (4:5) as a
> twelfth-low major third too?

****I guess yes, if you were describing in in 72-tET. But I don't
believe you can squeeze meantone into 72-tET, if I understand it
correctly... I think you need 144-tET, if I remember correctly, and
there are *too* many symbols in that and the alterations are too
small, for *my* taste...

>
> You seem to be saying that G-Bv-D is a "correct" major triad, but
you want to call it a twelfth-low major triad. Seems a contradiction.
>

****Well, Dave, since the "B" is "modified" by a "v" it has to
be "altered" or "twelfth-low." So, yes, I prefer that G-B-D in
an "unaltered state" be our traditionally wide 12-tET triad.

>
> And so, you want to base your interval nomenclature on those that
are out of tune? I still don't get it. Why?

****Why? Because that's what hoards of players in conservatories and
music schools have studied and are *used* to. And, I believe that's
what they are going to study for the conceivable future. I haven't
heard of any schools, except for isolated cases at the New England
Conservatory, to offer anything different.

The system that *you* would like where G-B-D *is* 4:5:6 is
essentially the system advocated by Ben Johnston and we've found
quite a few inconsistencies trying to reconcile that even to the
basic Pythagorean-based staff.

I find his notation quite confusing, and I would hate to try to teach
it to players. I believe the difficulty of his notation is one
reason that several of his major works, the major (I mean in stature,
not in pitch :) ) string quartets have yet to be performed!

Ben Johnston has a *name* as a composer and, still, no one wants to
tackle these works. (I didn't say "tackle" because of the American
Superbowl today, either...)

>
> I'd be saying to the musicians, "No. Not a 12-tET major third, we
> don't have to put up with that crap any longer. We want a real true
> just proper pure major third. You know, the kind you can tune by
ear.
> The barbershop harmony kind. _That's_ what we call a major third in
> _this_ scale."

***Like I say, that's what Ben Johnston tries to do and he *does* get
performances. However he mostly *doesn't* get performances.

What I'm saying is very obvious and simple: just, for the notational
convenience, keep the 12-tET pitches *as is* since they are what
everybody has practiced and studied, and everything else is
a "deviation..."

I can *guarantee* this will produce the fastest results in
traditional players and until we see an entirely different group of
players out there, this is the best way to go, in *my* opinion.

Music is, mostly, for better or worse, *not* about rational thinking,
but about *practicing.* "Practicing" means that one "gets used" to
certain conventions, patterns, standards.

"Practicing" is not *logical.* It's really not about *logic* at all
(particularly the way *most* players practice :) )

Once a certain standard is defined and practiced, it's a bit silly to
go "against the grain" and use a different standard, even though it
might make more "logical" sense.

But, I don't want to stop anybody. Go ahead with the Ben Johnston
route, but I don't want to hear any complaining about how, if you're
a composer, you're not getting performances! :)

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/3/2002 6:58:23 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33603

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> >
> > > If the 12-tET-based interval naming works better for you, then
> > so be
> > > it, but I can't help feeling that it completely ignores the
> JI-basis
> > > that is the raison detre for Blackjack.
> >
> > but your system, based on a 5-limit interpretation of diatonic
> > intervals, is only well-suited for systems where 81:80 is
> > tempered out. otherwise it develops ugly 'kinks' much like ben
> > johnston's pitch notation.
>
> Surely this only happens if you try to _apply_ it as a pitch
notation.
> Please give some exaples of "ugly kinks".
>

****Hi Dave!

Our "BenJohnstonFest" on this list started Mid-April of last year
after the Claremont Microfest where I saw Kyle Gann and David Doty
present compositions in the Ben Johnston notation which does, indeed,
proclaim the "major triad" as the "just" one... but it starts on "C!"
and "middle C" is the "middle C" of the piano :)

As usual, months of this started with one of my idiotic questions,
which you will find here:

/tuning/topicId_20929.html#20929

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/3/2002 7:10:04 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33603

> Surely this only happens if you try to _apply_ it as a pitch
notation.
> Please give some exaples of "ugly kinks".
>

****Actually, Dave, the Ben Johnston discussion, started in April,
took a break for almost a month, and then started again with Monz,
mid-May of last year:

/tuning/topicId_20929.html#21054

Joseph

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/3/2002 7:19:30 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33605

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> >
> > ****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.
> >
> > I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni and
> > Varese....
> >
> > JP
>
> There is one ratio missing from the chart. Can you find it? In
> searching, you may discover some beautiful things.

*****Hmmm. This is a fun puzzle. I don't see some ratios with 7,
even 7:4, unless they just didn't print out on my printer...

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

2/3/2002 3:11:49 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> That's the crux of it. Whether it makes any sense or not that *is*
> what it's called by almost all practicing musicians today, since
> virtually *all* of them work in 12-tET.

Does that mean when they don't (as for instance, a performance in meantone) they aren't using major thirds at all? I don't think musicians are quite *that* committed to 12-et.

> ****I guess yes, if you were describing in in 72-tET. But I don't
> believe you can squeeze meantone into 72-tET, if I understand it
> correctly... I think you need 144-tET, if I remember correctly, and
> there are *too* many symbols in that and the alterations are too
> small, for *my* taste...

The 144-et version of meantone is lousy anyway--even flatter than
26-et, with the alleged "meantone" within a cent of 10/9.

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/3/2002 3:41:14 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33624

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > That's the crux of it. Whether it makes any sense or not that
*is*
> > what it's called by almost all practicing musicians today, since
> > virtually *all* of them work in 12-tET.
>
> Does that mean when they don't (as for instance, a performance in
meantone) they aren't using major thirds at all? I don't think
musicians are quite *that* committed to 12-et.
>

****Hi Gene!

Well, this is the topic that Ed Foote is bringing up. I guess the
question is whether in such performances *tuning* is notated *at
all..* And I guess, for the most part, it *isn't.* One will play a
piece by William Byrd, for instance in meantone and use exactly the
same notation as the performer playing on the 12-tET piano.

I dunno if that situation with the lack of specificity for tuning
would be so good for 21st Century music and the exploration of *new*
tuning systems. I would rather doubt it...

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>

2/3/2002 3:26:58 PM

Hello, there, everyone, and I'd like to offer a few comments regarding
the question of defining a "major third," either "just" or otherwise.

First, taking what I might call an "audible coupling of partials" as a
Dave Keenan variety of "just," I might apply this description
especially to major thirds at either 5:4 (~386.31 cents) or 9:7
(~435.08 cents). These are the simplest ratios.

Whether the mediant of these ratios, 14:11 (~417.51 cents), also
involves an audible coupling of partials or "dyadic harmonic entropy
minimum" seems much more debatable.

However, I would say that a major third at 14:11 or any other exact
integer ratio can be called "just" in a more generic usage: for
example, "a just 12544:9801" (~427.20 cents).

What sounds "in tune" or "out of tune" may have lots to do with the
relevant tuning system and musical style. Thus a major third around
423-424 cents, a proposed "harmonic entropy maximum," can sound
"in tune and relatively concordant" in some neo-medieval settings, but
quite "out of tune" in a Renaissance setting where something at or
near 5:4 is expected.

To me, xenharmonics means a willingness and readiness to explore any
corner of the intonational universe, and to look at a given style as
its own musical language, rather than an imperfect translation of some
other "standard" such as 12-EDO, or 5-limit just intonation for that
matter. One person's or style's "in tune" interval may be another
person's or style's "30-cent error."

Of course, a "user-friendly" outlook should include a willingness to
translate terms so as to promote understanding -- but also with an
awareness that describing one system in terms of the conventions of
another can distort as well as commnicate musical reality.

Thus in a Renaissance meantone setting, or related "Xeno-Renaissance"
style, I find it very natural to take a "major third" as synonymous
with 5:4 or something close. An interval such as 32:25 (~427.37 cents)
might be called either a "diminished fourth," which I'd tend to use if
it behaves in a typical Renaissance fashion; or a "supermajor third,"
especially if it occurs boldly and gets treated in more of a
neo-medieval fashion, often expanding to a fifth.

In a neo-medieval setting, I might often simply call it a "major
third," while 5:4 or thereabouts could be a "diminished fourth" or
"schisma third."

Each system or style has its own sense of "normalcy," and letting the
language reflect this context feels right to me.

This doesn't rule out providing helpful cues to someone who may be
attuned to a specific system, for example:

"For a listener accustomed to 12-EDO, a major third
has a standard size of 400 cents -- but other systems
have their own standards. In Renaissance or related
styles, a major third is typically at around 5:4 or
386 cents, about 1/12-tone lower. In neo-medieval
styles, it is often at around 14:11 or 418 cents,
about 1/12-tone higher.

While a newcomer to these styles may regard these
sizes of thirds as 'deviations' from 12-EDO, they
represent regular and routine intervals, just as
the 400-cent third does in a 12-EDO setting. Thus
it is important to get 'acclimated' to each tuning
system or musical 'language' in its own terms."

To Dave Keenan: Thank you for so ably and eloquently presenting your
view of JI as "audible purity," certainly one viable definition, and
worth keeping in very prominent view.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/3/2002 4:11:22 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33602
>
> >
> > Er _which_ one are you calling the major triad here. For me,
the
> only reason 0c:400c:700c is called a major triad in 12-tET is
because
> it's an acceptable approximation _and_ it's the _only_
approximation
> > available.
>
> ****Hi Dave.
>
> Sure, this is logically true. However, in the paragraph above
you
> say "the only reason Oc:400c:700c *is* called a major triad..."
>
> That's the crux of it. Whether it makes any sense or not that
*is*
> what it's called by almost all practicing musicians today, since
> virtually *all* of them work in 12-tET. I believe Paul Erlich has
> pointed to studies that show that even *string* players, since
the
> advent of many works with strings and piano, particularly, tend
to
> play in 12-tET, even though one might think they would play in
just
> or Pythagorean.

since 1800 european conservatories have taught musicians to
play sharps at least as high as enh. equivalent flats, never lower.
is it surprising that this has worked its way into our cultural
consciousness? the just major third has a different emotional
character than the equal tempered one, as does the major third
a twelfth tone lower than the just one. plenty of cultures have
found ways to make artistic use of these intervals. ours is
perhaps "bright"-feeling in comparison -- and our minor third,
flatter than just, is exaggerated in its difference from the major
third. unlike mark, i don't see an overwhelming gravitation toward
"brightness" in just about any musical culture i can think of. in
java the octaves are often "brightened" or "darkened" but the
average "major third" is about 369 cents.

>
> >
> > Should we refer to the 1/4 comma meantone major third (4:5)
as a
> > twelfth-low major third too?
>
> ****I guess yes, if you were describing in in 72-tET. But I don't
> believe you can squeeze meantone into 72-tET, if I understand
it
> correctly... I think you need 144-tET, if I remember correctly, and
> there are *too* many symbols in that and the alterations are
too
> small, for *my* taste...

you need 288-tET, in fact, to accurately represent 1/4-comma
meantone _and_ 72-tET.

> > And so, you want to base your interval nomenclature on
those that
> are out of tune? I still don't get it. Why?
>
> ****Why? Because that's what hoards of players in
conservatories and
> music schools have studied and are *used* to. And, I believe
that's
> what they are going to study for the conceivable future. I haven't
> heard of any schools, except for isolated cases at the New
England
> Conservatory, to offer anything different.

new england conservatory preserves the same interval
nomenclature, maneri's class just adds quartertones and sixth
tones and twelfth tones. let's encourage this and write music for
these musicians, not try to knock them down. we can make our
own music and notate it however we please for ourselves, if we
wish.

> Music is, mostly, for better or worse, *not* about rational
thinking,
> but about *practicing.*

that's right. no practice, no music (at least for me and my guitar).

> "Practicing" means that one "gets used" to
> certain conventions, patterns, standards.
>
> "Practicing" is not *logical.* It's really not about *logic* at all
> (particularly the way *most* players practice :) )

it's not logical but practicing is to music as breathing is to life.

> Once a certain standard is defined and practiced, it's a bit silly
to
> go "against the grain" and use a different standard, even
though it
> might make more "logical" sense.

well i'm doing that myself with my 22-equal decatonic system.
but i wouldn't bring that to a busy conservatory-trained musician
and say, 'play this'!

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/3/2002 4:16:10 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> > Surely this only happens if you try to _apply_ it as a pitch
> notation.
> > Please give some exaples of "ugly kinks".
> >
>
> ****Hi Dave!
>
> Our "BenJohnstonFest" on this list started Mid-April of last year
> after the Claremont Microfest where I saw Kyle Gann and David
Doty
> present compositions in the Ben Johnston notation

joseph, note that dave keenan does not advocate the ben
johnston notation for pitches. he has been using the
12-equal-based notation for 72-equal pitches for some time
now. dave is just asking why we can't keep a just-based
terminology for intervals. my answer is that we build intervals on
top of one another, with respect to a reference pitch, and
"calculate" with them (that is, the fact that a M2 plus a P5 equals
a M6 is important for a composer when he's planning out
modulations). and so ultimately the situation will be just as bad
for intervals as johnston's notation would make it for pitches.

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/3/2002 4:17:14 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33605
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.
> > >
> > > I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni
and
> > > Varese....
> > >
> > > JP
> >
> > There is one ratio missing from the chart. Can you find it? In
> > searching, you may discover some beautiful things.
>
>
> *****Hmmm. This is a fun puzzle. I don't see some ratios with
7,
> even 7:4, unless they just didn't print out on my printer...

i guess they didn't. try looking at it on the screen.

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/3/2002 10:45:39 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33605
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > >
> > > ****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.
> > >
> > > I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni and
> > > Varese....
> > >
> > > JP
> >
> > There is one ratio missing from the chart. Can you find it? In
> > searching, you may discover some beautiful things.
>
>
> *****Hmmm. This is a fun puzzle. I don't see some ratios with 7,
> even 7:4, unless they just didn't print out on my printer...
>
> ??
>
> JP

your printer may be low on yellow ink, perhaps?
anyway, the missing ratio was 14:11 on the left side; i stuck it in,
and fixed up the tick marks; hopefully george will get the corrected
version; still in files / perlich / secor.gif

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/4/2002 6:49:53 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33644

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_12590.html#33605
> >
> > > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ****Thanks so much, Paul, for this beautiful chart.
> > > >
> > > > I think you are fulfilling the dreams of people like Busoni
and
> > > > Varese....
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > >
> > > There is one ratio missing from the chart. Can you find it? In
> > > searching, you may discover some beautiful things.
> >
> >
> > *****Hmmm. This is a fun puzzle. I don't see some ratios with
7,
> > even 7:4, unless they just didn't print out on my printer...
> >
> > ??
> >
> > JP
>
> your printer may be low on yellow ink, perhaps?
> anyway, the missing ratio was 14:11 on the left side; i stuck it
in,
> and fixed up the tick marks; hopefully george will get the
corrected
> version; still in files / perlich / secor.gif

****Hi Paul...

Yes, the yellow indications came out *very* poorly on my print-out.
They look just like "smudges..." but I can see now they are there...

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

2/4/2002 9:30:15 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> it's not logical but practicing is to music as breathing is to life.

That's a beautiful phrase, but it is far from a universal truth.
Practicing varies from performer to performer, and there are many
players that have practiced all vestiges of music out of their
playing entirely. As is so often the case, YMMV.

Me? Sure, I still practice, focused mainly on a particular task at
hand, but usually WRT performing a 'classical' part - my
improvisatory music is still just that: music of the moment.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/4/2002 10:30:10 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33659

> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > it's not logical but practicing is to music as breathing is to
life.
>
> That's a beautiful phrase, but it is far from a universal truth.
> Practicing varies from performer to performer, and there are many
> players that have practiced all vestiges of music out of their
> playing entirely. As is so often the case, YMMV.
>
> Me? Sure, I still practice, focused mainly on a particular task at
> hand, but usually WRT performing a 'classical' part - my
> improvisatory music is still just that: music of the moment.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Quite frankly, I believe the *most important* think that makes a
good performer a good performer is his inclination to *enjoy*
practicing...

I'm not the first person to say that, either... :)

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

2/4/2002 10:32:42 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
>
> > These were my color selections (ratio groups followed by color):
> >
> > 1 -- black
> > 3 -- red
> > 5 -- orange
> > 7 -- medium golden brown (i.e., having a yellow chroma, only
darker
> > for better contrast with a white background; but again, for a
> > background color, it would be yellow!)
> > 9 -- green
> > 11 -- cyan (rendered a little darker, for better contrast with
> white
> > background)
>
> I have followed this color scheme as well as I could here:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor.gif
>
> I hope you enjoy this, but there's a lot more in store, and only
Monz
> knows what I'm ultimately developing this into . . .

Thank, Paul! This looks very nice, and I'll be looking forward to
see where you're going with this. (However, might I suggest that
your original white might look better for 1/1 and 2/1 here?)

--George

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

2/4/2002 11:39:31 AM

Joe,

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> ***Quite frankly, I believe the *most important* think that makes a
> good performer a good performer is his inclination to *enjoy*
> practicing...
>
> I'm not the first person to say that, either... :)

Of course not. And you also come, AFAIK, strictly from a classical
tradition (feel free to correct me on that, Joe), where one practices
to recreate the music of someone else (or, rarely, your
own 'composed' music). There is no substitute for a well-prepared
performance, and no excuse for an ineptly executed and 'under-
practiced' one, but being 'well-practiced' is only one component of a
good performance. I've heard enough techno-drones, who can spit out
reams of notes, that couldn't move a dust mote a micron with their
emotice content.

[Holy crap, someone left my "Hyperbole" button in the 'On' position
again!...]

Performance varies by content, venue, culture, and individual. We can
no more say what is universal about this any more than we could say
who the best orchestrator in history is.

And now, I have to go practice... :)

Cheers,
Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/4/2002 12:28:26 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33666

> Joe,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > ***Quite frankly, I believe the *most important* think that makes
a
> > good performer a good performer is his inclination to *enjoy*
> > practicing...
> >
> > I'm not the first person to say that, either... :)
>
> Of course not. And you also come, AFAIK, strictly from a classical
> tradition (feel free to correct me on that, Joe), where one
practices
> to recreate the music of someone else (or, rarely, your
> own 'composed' music). There is no substitute for a well-prepared
> performance, and no excuse for an ineptly executed and 'under-
> practiced' one, but being 'well-practiced' is only one component of
a
> good performance. I've heard enough techno-drones, who can spit out
> reams of notes, that couldn't move a dust mote a micron with their
> emotice content.
>
> [Holy crap, someone left my "Hyperbole" button in the 'On' position
> again!...]
>
> Performance varies by content, venue, culture, and individual. We
can
> no more say what is universal about this any more than we could say
> who the best orchestrator in history is.
>
> And now, I have to go practice... :)
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

***Yes, Jon, and you'd better go get your little "burrito" in the
practice room right now... :)

Seriously, though, I know what you mean. There is a certain class
of "techno-performers" in the conservatories right now that can play
*perfectly* but not *beautifully...*...

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/4/2002 12:48:48 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "gdsecor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > These were my color selections (ratio groups followed by color):
> > >
> > > 1 -- black
> > > 3 -- red
> > > 5 -- orange
> > > 7 -- medium golden brown (i.e., having a yellow chroma, only
> darker
> > > for better contrast with a white background; but again, for a
> > > background color, it would be yellow!)
> > > 9 -- green
> > > 11 -- cyan (rendered a little darker, for better contrast with
> > white
> > > background)
> >
> > I have followed this color scheme as well as I could here:
> >
> > /tuning/files/perlich/secor.gif
> >
> > I hope you enjoy this, but there's a lot more in store, and only
> Monz
> > knows what I'm ultimately developing this into . . .
>
> Thank, Paul! This looks very nice, and I'll be looking forward to
> see where you're going with this. (However, might I suggest that
> your original white might look better for 1/1 and 2/1 here?)

really? well, ok . . . my computer has been chugging away at a more
precise harmonic entropy calculation (that's what the graph shows,
harmonic entropy), and once that's done, i'll redo the color map . . .

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/4/2002 1:37:03 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > it's not logical but practicing is to music as breathing is to
life.
>
> That's a beautiful phrase, but it is far from a universal truth.
> Practicing varies from performer to performer, and there are many
> players that have practiced all vestiges of music out of their
> playing entirely. As is so often the case, YMMV.
>
> Me? Sure, I still practice, focused mainly on a particular task at
> hand, but usually WRT performing a 'classical' part - my
> improvisatory music is still just that: music of the moment.

well, if practicing is breathing, then listening is eating, and
imagining is . . . dreaming, i guess. all three are essential to
music/life, at least for me (note that i did make that qualification
originally). i agree with your later messages that practicing alone
makes for some very soulless playing -- i've had periods like that
myself. one can often develop as a musician more by just listening
for six months than by just practicing for six months. i guess the
analogy was not a very good one.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

2/4/2002 1:51:06 PM

Well, it looks like I'm going to side with Jon Szanto on this one. Practicing is different depending on the people and the stage, et al.

Reminds me of the Thelonious Monk documentary. While Monk is jaming with his ensemble, Teo Macero interrupts and says he's ready to start rolling. Monk asks why he wasn't already rolling and Teo says, "so you could practice." Monk says, I haven't practiced for years. Every time I play, I PLAY!

Yup, something more like that for me. Though as Jon says, there are always the little quirks to unravel in a new piece...but it doesn't take long.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/7/2002 3:29:28 AM

now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:

/tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif

🔗monz <joemonz@yahoo.com>

2/7/2002 7:20:40 AM

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:29 AM
> Subject: [tuning] A gift for George Secor and Joseph Pehrson, part 2
>
>
> now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif

that's awesome, paul!

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗gdsecor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

2/7/2002 11:50:20 AM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif

Totally awesome, Paul!

--George

🔗paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>

2/7/2002 5:54:45 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> > From: paulerlich <paul@s...>
> > To: <tuning@y...>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 3:29 AM
> > Subject: [tuning] A gift for George Secor and Joseph Pehrson, part 2
> >
> >
> > now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:
> >
> > /tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif
>
>
> that's awesome, paul!

it would be cool to make this into an applet that you could input
_any_ scale into -- then immediately see where its intervals fall -- a
great interactive scale-design tool!

🔗dkeenanuqnetau <d.keenan@uq.net.au>

2/7/2002 6:29:21 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif

Wow Paul, that's beautiful!

(Leaving aside the issue of interval names)

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

2/7/2002 6:55:43 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#33765

> now for a cooler version of blackjackintmat4.xls:
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/secor2.gif

****Hi Paul...

This is very nice and very instructive. Not so easy to *print out*
though. Finally, I got it to work on legal going through *MS Paint*
on an inkjet... with one scotch tape splicing.

It certainly shows the Harmonic Entropy stuff going on, as well as
the interval spacings. I particularly like the four little
squares "squarely" in the center of the chart... rotating around B
[... the only place, of course, where four "little boxes" are
together.

The chart shows a *lot!* For simple, interval finding, though, I
believe I still prefer the Excel, since it is so fast and easy to
read... a *very* practical chart.

Thanks, though, for this wonderful *new* one!

Joseph

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/4/2002 12:09:50 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Bob Wendell/1.wma
Uploaded by : robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>
Description : Adptv JI - Our Choir

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Bob%20Wendell/1.wma

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

robert_wendell <rwendell@cangelic.org>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/5/2002 5:49:16 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Accidentals/Acc100.zip
Uploaded by : ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>
Description : "Accidentals" font by Ertugrul iNAN�, packed with a readme text and a NWC score

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Accidentals/Acc100.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/6/2002 7:10:41 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Pehrson/microtonal Ertugrul test.sib
Uploaded by : jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Description : Ertrugral micro font

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Pehrson/microtonal%20Ertugrul%20test.sib

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/10/2002 6:09:11 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Hamparsum/Hamparsum.zip
Uploaded by : ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>
Description : True Type font for Hamparsum notation

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Hamparsum/Hamparsum.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/10/2002 6:36:19 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Scales (Ertugrul iNAN�)/bagl_01.scl
Uploaded by : ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>
Description : Ratios of the fretting on the neck of Baglama (saz) as stated by Y. Tura

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Scales%20%28Ertugrul%20iNAN%80%A0%A0%C7%29/bagl_01.scl

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/20/2002 9:49:17 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Accidentals/Acc101.zip
Uploaded by : ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>
Description : "Accidentals" font by Ertugrul iNAN�, packed with a readme text, "mappings.doc", a NWC score, a SIB file, a Mozart 6 (mz) and a Music Publisher (mup) document.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Accidentals/Acc101.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

ertugrulInanc <ertugrulinanc@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/21/2002 2:39:05 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Pehrson/Test.sib
Uploaded by : jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>
Description : Ertugrul Inanc accidentals for Sibelius

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Pehrson/Test.sib

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

5/2/2002 1:32:17 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /HTML Tables/TableNestedPtolemyElevenToneJustScaleWeb.htm
Uploaded by : bill_flavell <bill_flavell@email.com>
Description : Prime/Inversion of Two 7-Tone Asymmetrical Ptolemy Just Scales Superimposed

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/HTML%20Tables/TableNestedPtolemyElevenToneJustScaleWeb.htm

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

bill_flavell <bill_flavell@email.com>

🔗emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com>

5/2/2002 3:04:54 PM

--- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /HTML
Tables/TableNestedPtolemyElevenToneJustScaleWeb.htm
> Uploaded by : bill_flavell <bill_flavell@e...>
> Description : Prime/Inversion of Two 7-Tone Asymmetrical Ptolemy
Just Scales Superimposed
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/HTML%
20Tables/TableNestedPtolemyElevenToneJustScaleWeb.htm
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> bill_flavell <bill_flavell@e...>

ah, i see we've been graced by the presence of the wonderful bill
flavell.

for those unfamiliar with his handiwork, you might want to take a
look at MusicTheory yahoogroup message #5590.

i may be departing shortly . . .

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

5/27/2002 7:27:02 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : / Click Here!
Uploaded by : helluyoisa <helluyoisa@yahoo.co.uk>
Description : No matter what your credit is like ,there is a card here for you!

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/%20Click%20Here%21

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

helluyoisa <helluyoisa@yahoo.co.uk>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

9/8/2002 12:18:13 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Danny's Junk Drawer/run-net.mid
Uploaded by : DaWier <dawier@hotmail.com>
Description : "The Runaway Piano" (composed in 1997), retuned to 52/3-NET by Scala

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Danny%27s%20Junk%20Drawer/run-net.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

DaWier <dawier@hotmail.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/25/2002 7:54:40 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /All-Key JI & JT/1Justtune.rtf
Uploaded by : prophecyspirit <prophecyspirit@aol.com>
Description : Heaven's Divine Music (JI-JT)

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/All-Key%20JI%20%26%20JT/1Justtune.rtf

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

prophecyspirit <prophecyspirit@aol.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/25/2002 10:02:54 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/xoomer.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : courtesy carl lumma

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/xoomer.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:20:40 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/72.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 72-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/72.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:22:32 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/53.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 53-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/53.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:24:36 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/34.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 34-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/34.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:24:51 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/22.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 22-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/22.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:28:47 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/15.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 15-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/15.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:29:42 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/10.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 10-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/10.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:59:29 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/26.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 26-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/26.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 8:59:48 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/27.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 27-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/27.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/27/2002 9:00:41 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/28.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : bingo-card lattice for 28-tET -- 5-limit

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/28.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/28/2002 11:49:27 AM

--- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#40261

>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /perlich/72.gif
> Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> Description : bingo-card lattice for 72-tET -- 5-limit
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/perlich/72.gif
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

***Has this file been discussed in the context of 72-tET? Probably
it has and I've missed it, although I thought I read everything...

It looks a little like a beehive with the honey drained out. I'm not
quite sure what I'm looking at...

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Joseph Pehrson

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/28/2002 12:21:15 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., tuning@y... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#40261
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This email message is a notification to let you know that
> > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> > group.
> >
> > File : /perlich/72.gif
> > Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> > Description : bingo-card lattice for 72-tET -- 5-limit
> >
> > You can access this file at the URL
> >
> > /tuning/files/perlich/72.gif
> >
> > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit
> >
> > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
>
> ***Has this file been discussed in the context of 72-tET? Probably
> it has and I've missed it, although I thought I read everything...
>
> It looks a little like a beehive with the honey drained out. I'm
not
> quite sure what I'm looking at...
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Thanks!
>
> Joseph Pehrson

joseph, this is nothing more than the good old 5-limit lattice for 72-
equal.

we've seen this many times before, though usually with the triangles
*connecting* the points, rather than the hexagons *enclosing* the
points, drawn . . . one step to the east means go up a perfect
fifth . . . one step to the west means go up a perfect fourth . . .
one step to the northeast means go up a major third . . . one step to
the northwest means go up a major sixth . . . one step to the
southeast means go up a minor third . . . one step to the southwest
means go up a minor sixth . . .

nothing new here! though, you can clearly see the *unison vectors* of
72-equal in the 5-limit (that's the distance and direction you need
to go to end up at the same pitch you started) by looking at the red
zeros . . . for example, the pythagorean comma vanishes since 12
steps to the left or right brings you back to the same pitch you
started at . . . here's something to chew on: can you see the kleisma?

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/28/2002 12:38:55 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#40299

>
> joseph, this is nothing more than the good old 5-limit lattice for
72-equal.
>
> we've seen this many times before, though usually with the
triangles
> *connecting* the points, rather than the hexagons *enclosing* the
> points, drawn . . . one step to the east means go up a perfect
> fifth . . . one step to the west means go up a perfect fourth . . .
> one step to the northeast means go up a major third . . . one step
to
> the northwest means go up a major sixth . . . one step to the
> southeast means go up a minor third . . . one step to the southwest
> means go up a minor sixth . . .
>
> nothing new here!

***Oh sure.... It looked forbidding on first glance. I never liked
honey after I ate it directly from a waxy honeycomb at my
grandmother's house... but that's a different story...

Sure, I can see the 7*6 = 42 to the right (thinking my 12-tET :)
etc, etc, etc...

though, you can clearly see the *unison vectors* of
> 72-equal in the 5-limit (that's the distance and direction you need
> to go to end up at the same pitch you started) by looking at the
red
> zeros . . . for example, the pythagorean comma vanishes since 12
> steps to the left or right brings you back to the same pitch you
> started at . . . here's something to chew on: can you see the
kleisma?

***Well, let me take a fun guess... Is it the "zero" one arrives at
by going northwest, through 53, 34, 15, 68, 49, opps, then turning
slightly to the East at "0" ??

If so, why, and if not, why??

Whoops, I got it, but the wrong way. The Monz dict. says 6 major
thirds up and 5 fifths down, so I should have gone:

0, 23, 46, 69, 20, 43, 66 and *then* turned the corner, 24, 54, 12,
42, 0, BINGO!

There it is!

Joseph

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/28/2002 12:41:28 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#40300

> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#40299
>
> >
> > joseph, this is nothing more than the good old 5-limit lattice
for
> 72-equal.
> >
> > we've seen this many times before, though usually with the
> triangles
> > *connecting* the points, rather than the hexagons *enclosing* the
> > points, drawn . . . one step to the east means go up a perfect
> > fifth . . . one step to the west means go up a perfect
fourth . . .
> > one step to the northeast means go up a major third . . . one
step
> to
> > the northwest means go up a major sixth . . . one step to the
> > southeast means go up a minor third . . . one step to the
southwest
> > means go up a minor sixth . . .
> >
> > nothing new here!
>
> ***Oh sure.... It looked forbidding on first glance. I never liked
> honey after I ate it directly from a waxy honeycomb at my
> grandmother's house... but that's a different story...
>
> Sure, I can see the 7*6 = 42 to the right (thinking my 12-tET :)
> etc, etc, etc...
>
>
> though, you can clearly see the *unison vectors* of
> > 72-equal in the 5-limit (that's the distance and direction you
need
> > to go to end up at the same pitch you started) by looking at the
> red
> > zeros . . . for example, the pythagorean comma vanishes since 12
> > steps to the left or right brings you back to the same pitch you
> > started at . . . here's something to chew on: can you see the
> kleisma?
>
> ***Well, let me take a fun guess... Is it the "zero" one arrives at
> by going northwest, through 53, 34, 15, 68, 49, opps, then turning
> slightly to the East at "0" ??
>
> If so, why, and if not, why??
>
> Whoops, I got it, but the wrong way. The Monz dict. says 6 major
> thirds up and 5 fifths down, so I should have gone:
>
> 0, 23, 46, 69, 20, 43, 66 and *then* turned the corner, 24, 54, 12,
> 42, 0, BINGO!
>
> There it is!
>
> Joseph

***Come to think of it, there is no "wrong" route! I just went
the "minor third, major third" way!

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/28/2002 12:47:41 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#40301

> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#40300
>
>
>
> ***Come to think of it, there is no "wrong" route! I just went
> the "minor third, major third" way!
>
> JP

Whoops! Let's try it the *third* time. There's charm in that.

I meant (ahem!) the "major sixth, major third" route!

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/28/2002 12:54:31 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> here's something to chew on: can you see the
> kleisma?
>
> ***Well, let me take a fun guess... Is it the "zero" one arrives at
> by going northwest, through 53, 34, 15, 68, 49, opps, then turning
> slightly to the East at "0" ??

yes, that's right!

> If so, why

one reason (hard): the kleismic temperaments all fall on a line on
xoomer.gif, the line connecting 19, 15, 23, 34, 53, and (if you can
see it) 72. now, draw a line connecting your starting "0" and your
ending "0" you mentioned above. this line points in *exactly* the
same direction as the kleismic line on xoomer.gif.

another reason (easy): the kleisma is the result of tuning 5 major
sixths up and 1 major third up (ignoring octaves). that's just what
you did my following your path in the lattice!

> Whoops, I got it, but the wrong way. The Monz dict. says 6 major
> thirds up and 5 fifths down, so I should have gone:
>
> 0, 23, 46, 69, 20, 43, 66 and *then* turned the corner, 24, 54, 12,
> 42, 0, BINGO!

hee hee!

but your original route was more direct! obviously, it amounts to the
same thing -- it's just easier to get there through major sixths or
minor thirds than by restricting yourself to major thirds and perfect
fifths!

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/28/2002 12:55:27 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Come to think of it, there is no "wrong" route! I just went
> the "minor third, major third" way!

we're both saying the same thing, at the same time . . . and all the
poor tuning list readers have to read it all :) :)

sorry, folks . . .

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/28/2002 1:57:58 PM

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#40304

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> > ***Come to think of it, there is no "wrong" route! I just went
> > the "minor third, major third" way!
>
> we're both saying the same thing, at the same time . . . and all
the
> poor tuning list readers have to read it all :) :)
>
> sorry, folks . . .

***Well, the new "honeycombs" are pretty interesting, though. And, I
assume each "bingo" card has its own story to tell. Probably some of
them would be more difficult for me than 72-tET, with which I am
reasonably familiar by now...

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/11/2002 5:22:45 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/monzoomer.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : et graph for monz's webpage

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/monzoomer.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/13/2003 6:02:16 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /pops5.txt
Uploaded by : genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
Description : More on 5-limit temperaments

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/pops5.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/21/2003 1:35:00 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/pop.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : p-optimal meantone generators

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/pop.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> <gwsmith@svpal.org>

2/21/2003 7:04:51 PM

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

> File : /perlich/pop.gif
> Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
> Description : p-optimal meantone generators

Once again a picture shows its worth. You must be happy to see that
in this case at least, p=1 doesn't screw anything up.

I presume this is 5-limit, but you should say so, I think.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/25/2003 3:31:06 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/woptimal.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : w-optimal meantone generators

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/woptimal.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> <gwsmith@svpal.org>

2/25/2003 6:29:26 PM

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

These are wonderful graphs you've been making; I hope we see more of
them. If you wanted to do a 7-limit graph, you could try picking a
parametrized family rather than fooling with a 3D graph.

Don't forget that 5-limit meantone is not the only game in town!

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/26/2003 11:49:49 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /perlich/wopaj.gif
Uploaded by : wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Description : w-optimal pajara generators

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/perlich/wopaj.gif

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/1/2003 11:06:31 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /carl/raga3-small.png
Uploaded by : clumma <ekin@lumma.org>
Description : Alt. view for Manuel's raga charts.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/carl/raga3-small.png

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

clumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

5/26/2003 10:15:56 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Gene/compsaw.mid
Uploaded by : genewardsmith <gwsmith@svpal.org>
Description : Tuning comparison for various ets

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Gene/compsaw.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

genewardsmith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/26/2003 10:20:31 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Gene/compsaw.mid
> Uploaded by : genewardsmith <gwsmith@s...>
> Description : Tuning comparison for various ets
>
> You can access this file at the URL
>
> /tuning/files/Gene/compsaw.mid

This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes

12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI

I would have put it into the new tuning_files group, but it seems
impossible to become a member, and impossible to use it if you are not
a member. Paul? What the heck are you up to with this thing?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/26/2003 11:58:58 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
> in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
>
> 12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI

That should be

JI-12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI

People who cavil at ennealimmal as a method for notating and producing
what is effectively JI are invited to hear the difference between the
612-et and JI. Nine nominals really can do the job, sez I.

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

5/27/2003 12:22:42 AM

>> This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
>> in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
>>
>> 12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI
>
>That should be
>
>JI-12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI

Funny; I count more chords than that.

-C.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/27/2003 1:36:34 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
> >> in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
> >>
> >> 12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI
> >
> >That should be
> >
> >JI-12-JI-15-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI
>
> Funny; I count more chords than that.

That's because I still did it wrong:

JI-12-JI-15-JI-19-JI-22-JI-31-JI-53-JI-72-JI-171-JI-612-JI

Yeesh!

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/27/2003 6:46:25 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43890

> This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
> in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
>

***Dumbo the elephant is asking what chord this is? I've never seen
a chord notated quite like that before. I'm obviously missing
something...

Thanks!

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/27/2003 7:00:58 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43915

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#43890
>
> > This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
> > in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
> >
>
> ***Dumbo the elephant is asking what chord this is? I've never
seen
> a chord notated quite like that before. I'm obviously missing
> something...
>
> Thanks!
>
> J. Pehrson

***Oh... I guess this is just a "seventh" chord, such as
C:E:G:Bb:C2:C3... with a couple extra octaves on top... yes?

Anyway, this is a fascinating exercise; one of the most interesting
around. I can't hear much of *any* difference after about 31.

By the time we're at 72, I hear no difference at all... and going
forward.

Any other opinions from those with more fetishistic pitch
orientation??

J. Pehrson

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/28/2003 12:51:16 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Oh... I guess this is just a "seventh" chord, such as
> C:E:G:Bb:C2:C3... with a couple extra octaves on top... yes?

If C3 were the starting pitch (which it isn't) it would be the JI
version of C3:E4:G4:Bb4:C5

> Anyway, this is a fascinating exercise; one of the most interesting
> around. I can't hear much of *any* difference after about 31.
>
> By the time we're at 72, I hear no difference at all... and going
> forward.
>
> Any other opinions from those with more fetishistic pitch
> orientation??

The first one I actually like the sound of much is 22; the first one
to seem really in tune is 72; 171 sounds almost like JI and 612 sounds
just like JI.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

5/28/2003 2:55:40 PM

aren't you folks forgetting that different midi players will have
different pitch resolution, and that all of them have a finite pitch
resolution??

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#43915
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_12590.html#43890
> >
> > > This is a midi file which plays a single chord (1-5/2-3-7/2-4)
> > > in various equal temperaments and JI. It goes
> > >
> >
> > ***Dumbo the elephant is asking what chord this is? I've never
> seen
> > a chord notated quite like that before. I'm obviously missing
> > something...
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
>
> ***Oh... I guess this is just a "seventh" chord, such as
> C:E:G:Bb:C2:C3... with a couple extra octaves on top... yes?
>
> Anyway, this is a fascinating exercise; one of the most interesting
> around. I can't hear much of *any* difference after about 31.
>
> By the time we're at 72, I hear no difference at all... and going
> forward.
>
> Any other opinions from those with more fetishistic pitch
> orientation??
>
> J. Pehrson

🔗Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

5/28/2003 3:59:47 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> aren't you folks forgetting that different midi players will have
> different pitch resolution, and that all of them have a finite pitch
> resolution??

Aren't you forgetting that the hardware that plays the midi file will also (potentially) impose limitations and problems, especially computer sound cards?

The point is well-taken, which is why recorded audio files are best, even though they take up much more space...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/28/2003 4:30:34 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > aren't you folks forgetting that different midi players will have
> > different pitch resolution, and that all of them have a finite pitch
> > resolution??
>
> Aren't you forgetting that the hardware that plays the midi file
will also (potentially) impose limitations and problems, especially
computer sound cards?
>
> The point is well-taken, which is why recorded audio files are best,
even though they take up much more space...

I wasn't assuming people would be listening to a midi file. I found it
worked best to render it into a wav file and listen to that. However,
it would no doubt be safest to use Csound to make an audio file, and
post a compressed version of it. It would also take up a lot more
space, which we don't have.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/28/2003 5:14:27 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43918

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Oh... I guess this is just a "seventh" chord, such as
> > C:E:G:Bb:C2:C3... with a couple extra octaves on top... yes?
>
> If C3 were the starting pitch (which it isn't) it would be the JI
> version of C3:E4:G4:Bb4:C5
>
>
> > Anyway, this is a fascinating exercise; one of the most
interesting
> > around. I can't hear much of *any* difference after about 31.
> >
> > By the time we're at 72, I hear no difference at all... and going
> > forward.
> >
> > Any other opinions from those with more fetishistic pitch
> > orientation??
>
> The first one I actually like the sound of much is 22; the first one
> to seem really in tune is 72; 171 sounds almost like JI and 612
sounds
> just like JI.

***Thanks, Gene. Yes, this is a terrific exercise. I can't,
personally, distinguish much beyond 72, but I'll have to listen
again. I mean, I can *imagine* I'm hearing differences, but I can't
be sure...

J. Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/28/2003 5:28:37 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43936

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > aren't you folks forgetting that different midi players will
have
> > > different pitch resolution, and that all of them have a finite
pitch
> > > resolution??
> >
> > Aren't you forgetting that the hardware that plays the midi file
> will also (potentially) impose limitations and problems, especially
> computer sound cards?
> >
> > The point is well-taken, which is why recorded audio files are
best,
> even though they take up much more space...
>
> I wasn't assuming people would be listening to a midi file. I found
it
> worked best to render it into a wav file and listen to that.
However,
> it would no doubt be safest to use Csound to make an audio file, and
> post a compressed version of it. It would also take up a lot more
> space, which we don't have.

***Hi Gene,

Why don't you try that and post it over on Paul's new files forum for
the time being, if you can get into that one now... I'd enjoy hearing
the *enhanced* version. It's quite a good exercise...

J. Pehrson

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/28/2003 9:09:20 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Thanks, Gene. Yes, this is a terrific exercise. I can't,
> personally, distinguish much beyond 72, but I'll have to listen
> again. I mean, I can *imagine* I'm hearing differences, but I can't
> be sure...

This may be an example of what is being discussed--the dependence of
this exercise on how we listen to the midi file.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/28/2003 9:11:56 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> Why don't you try that and post it over on Paul's new files forum for
> the time being, if you can get into that one now...

Because I can't. Paul claims I don't need to be a member of that
group, and won't make me one, but I can't see how to use it any other way.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/28/2003 9:13:47 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43945

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > Why don't you try that and post it over on Paul's new files forum
for
> > the time being, if you can get into that one now...
>
> Because I can't. Paul claims I don't need to be a member of that
> group, and won't make me one, but I can't see how to use it any
other way.

***Can't you just join *voluntarily?* That's what I *thought* *I*
did... Maybe you have some kind of software glitch??

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/28/2003 11:16:49 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Can't you just join *voluntarily?* That's what I *thought* *I*
> did... Maybe you have some kind of software glitch??

I clicked on "join this group", and waited a long time in the "pending
member" stage. Finally Paul sent me a note saying I didn't need to be
a member, which does not seem to be true. I think it should simply be
taken off moderator approval for membership. Paul?

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

5/29/2003 6:42:44 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#43947

wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > ***Can't you just join *voluntarily?* That's what I *thought*
*I*
> > did... Maybe you have some kind of software glitch??
>
> I clicked on "join this group", and waited a long time in
the "pending
> member" stage. Finally Paul sent me a note saying I didn't need to
be
> a member, which does not seem to be true. I think it should simply
be
> taken off moderator approval for membership. Paul?

***Well, that's a little strange, because I was able to sign in
right away without any kind of "approval" so that's why I was saying
it might be some kind of software glitch with *your* computer or
connection. Dunno...

J. Pehrson

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

5/29/2003 11:05:26 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...>
wrote:
>
> > Why don't you try that and post it over on Paul's new files forum
for
> > the time being, if you can get into that one now...
>
> Because I can't. Paul claims I don't need to be a member of that
> group, and won't make me one, but I can't see how to use it any
>other way.

you tried uploading a file? what happened?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

5/29/2003 5:53:44 PM

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

> you tried uploading a file? what happened?

Since I'm not a group member, I don't have an "upload file" link. Why
not just remove the moderation? Apparently Joe joined when there
wasn't any.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/2/2003 4:24:50 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /carl/kurt.zip
Uploaded by : clumma <ekin@lumma.org>
Description : Scala files for Kurt.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/carl/kurt.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

clumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/4/2003 11:27:21 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /LouisNelson.MID
Uploaded by : Louis_Nelson <Louis_Nelson@adidam.org>
Description : A taste of my music so you can decide how much to respect my opinions.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/LouisNelson.MID

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

Louis_Nelson <Louis_Nelson@adidam.org>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/4/2003 11:31:24 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Louis/LouisNelson.MID
Uploaded by : Louis_Nelson <Louis_Nelson@adidam.org>
Description : A taste of my music so you can decide how much to respect my opinions.

You can access this file at the URL

/tuning/files/Louis/LouisNelson.MID

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit

http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

Louis_Nelson <Louis_Nelson@adidam.org>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

7/5/2003 12:16:36 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Louis/LouisNelson.MID
> Uploaded by : Louis_Nelson <Louis_Nelson@a...>
> Description : A taste of my music so you can decide how much to
> respect my opinions.

why would anyone *not* respect your opinions? :) :)
thanks, i'll listen when i get a chance!

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

File : /Andy Fillebrown/040808 1707.zip
Uploaded by : andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@aol.com>
Description : Just a test, but interesting?

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Andy%20Fillebrown/040808%201707.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@aol.com>

🔗andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@aol.com>

8/8/2004 4:38:19 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Andy Fillebrown/040808 1707.zip
> Uploaded by : andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@a...>
> Description : Just a test, but interesting?
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/Andy%20Fillebrown/040808%
201707.zip
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@a...>

Is there a limit on how much I can upload?

Andy F.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

8/8/2004 5:26:03 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "andrewfillebrown" <AMiltonF@a...>

/tuning/topicId_12590.html#55352

> Is there a limit on how much I can upload?
>
> Andy F.

***Yes, very much so. The files area here is almost filled. It
*was* just about filled recently, but now I see that somebody has
cleared about 2 megs.

The place where people upload files around here is called "Tuning
Files," yet another forum:

/tuning_files/

That's filling up fast, though, too... there's only about 5 megs
available over there now...

J. Pehrson

🔗andrewfillebrown <AMiltonF@aol.com>

8/9/2004 11:03:30 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "andrewfillebrown" <AMiltonF@a...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_12590.html#55352
>
> > Is there a limit on how much I can upload?
> >
> > Andy F.
>
>
> ***Yes, very much so. The files area here is almost filled. It
> *was* just about filled recently, but now I see that somebody has
> cleared about 2 megs.
>
> The place where people upload files around here is called "Tuning
> Files," yet another forum:
>
> /tuning_files/
>
> That's filling up fast, though, too... there's only about 5 megs
> available over there now...
>
> J. Pehrson

Ok, I'll be renting some web-space soon anyway. For now I'll just
rotate files in and out (if anybody's interested).

Thanks,
Andy F.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

9/29/2005 1:44:29 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /hstraub64/PentatonicMOS.txt
Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>
Description : Families of pentatonic MOS scales for all n-EDO tunings

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/hstraub64/PentatonicMOS.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

9/29/2005 1:44:06 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /hstraub64/HexatonicMOS.txt
Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>
Description : Families of hexatonic MOS scales for all n-EDO tunings

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/hstraub64/HexatonicMOS.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/2/2005 11:07:10 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>
Description : Families of heptatonic MOS scales for all n-EDO tunings

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/2/2005 11:30:19 AM

>File : /hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
>Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@t...>
>Description : Families of heptatonic MOS scales ...
>groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt

These are great, Hans.

-Carl

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

10/4/2005 4:10:35 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> >File : /hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
> >Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@t...>
> >Description : Families of heptatonic MOS scales ...
> >groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
>
> These are great, Hans.
>

Thanks!

BTW, here is something I noticed looking at this table. The lowest EDO
tunings that support MOS scales of the diatonic type, i.e. with 5
large and 2 small steps, are 12, 17, 19 and 22 - well-known beasts,
all of these!
Having a look at the others, 31 is another well-known one; 24, 34 and
36 are obvious because of 12 and 17. There are, however, three more:
26, 29 and 33. Anybody has experiences with these?
--
Hans Straub

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/4/2005 11:48:33 AM

> BTW, here is something I noticed looking at this table. The
> lowest EDO tunings that support MOS scales of the diatonic type,
> i.e. with 5 large and 2 small steps, are 12, 17, 19 and 22 -
> well-known beasts, all of these! Having a look at the others,
> 31 is another well-known one; 24, 34 and 36 are obvious because
> of 12 and 17. There are, however, three more: 26, 29 and 33.
> Anybody has experiences with these?

29, sure. I've never looked at it in 26, but I suspect others
have. 33 is the only one I can't remember being mentioned in
this context.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

10/4/2005 1:03:29 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > BTW, here is something I noticed looking at this table. The
> > lowest EDO tunings that support MOS scales of the diatonic type,
> > i.e. with 5 large and 2 small steps, are 12, 17, 19 and 22 -
> > well-known beasts, all of these! Having a look at the others,
> > 31 is another well-known one; 24, 34 and 36 are obvious because
> > of 12 and 17. There are, however, three more: 26, 29 and 33.
> > Anybody has experiences with these?
>
> 29, sure. I've never looked at it in 26, but I suspect others
> have. 33 is the only one I can't remember being mentioned in
> this context.

26 has certainly been considered in theory, and it would not surprise
me if Herman or someone of that adventurous sort has examined it. 26
and 33 actually go together, as they are both flat fifth systems.
However, 19/33 is kind of extreme as a flattone fifth, and not extreme
enough as a mavilla fifth.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/4/2005 2:10:15 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > >File : /hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
> > >Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@t...>
> > >Description : Families of heptatonic MOS scales ...
> > >groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/files/hstraub64/HeptatonicMOS.txt
> >
> > These are great, Hans.
> >
>
> Thanks!
>
> BTW, here is something I noticed looking at this table. The lowest
EDO
> tunings that support MOS scales of the diatonic type, i.e. with 5
> large and 2 small steps, are 12, 17, 19 and 22 - well-known beasts,
> all of these!
> Having a look at the others, 31 is another well-known one; 24, 34
and
> 36 are obvious because of 12 and 17. There are, however, three more:
> 26, 29 and 33. Anybody has experiences with these?

Yes, especially 26, which I've posted about a lot on these lists, and
which Aaron J. brought up recently on MMM. 29 has come up quite a bit
too, due to Margo Schulter and many others. 33 is the famous "1/2-
comma meantone" which doesn't excel in the consonance department.

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

10/4/2005 6:34:20 PM

hstraub64 wrote:

> BTW, here is something I noticed looking at this table. The lowest EDO
> tunings that support MOS scales of the diatonic type, i.e. with 5
> large and 2 small steps, are 12, 17, 19 and 22 - well-known beasts,
> all of these!
> Having a look at the others, 31 is another well-known one; 24, 34 and
> 36 are obvious because of 12 and 17. There are, however, three more:
> 26, 29 and 33. Anybody has experiences with these?

26 is a nice one, especially if you go beyond the diatonic scale to explore its other resources. It's consistent up to the 13 limit, which is better than anything until you get to 29, and you have to go all the way up to 41 before you run across one that does better in terms of consistency than 29. The diatonic semitones are very large (3 steps, or about 138.5 cents), and the chromatic semitones are very small (1 step), so I like to use the intermediate-sized 92.3-cent semitone in some melodic contexts instead of always using the pure diatonic scale. You can hear this interval in the melody of my 26-ET etude from 1998:

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/26tet.mid

More recently, I've been using the "lemba" MOS (or technically DE, since it has a half-octave period), which in its most basic form has a 10-note scale of 6 large steps and 4 small steps to the octave (6x3 + 4x2). I put "lemba" in quotes since that's really the name of the temperament, but I don't have a specific name for the scale. I use a 24-note per octave keyboard tuning which puts the basic lemba scale on the black keys, which allows me to switch back and forth between lemba and diatonic scales at will.

29-ET is also one that comes up on a lot of "good tuning" lists, although I'm not familiar with anything specifically that uses it. It's at the intersection of some pretty familiar temperament lines: most notably porcupine, negri, and schismic. I played around with it a little when I was exploring porcupine temperaments, but I haven't done anything with 29-ET specifically in mind.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/temp-porcupine.html
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/porcupine-29.mid

33-ET doesn't appear to have much to recommend it, but I have a brief example on my augmented temperament page.

http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/temp-augmented.html
http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/ex/aug33.mid

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/9/2005 5:14:07 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /hstraub64/OctatonicMOS.txt
Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>
Description : Families of octatonic MOS scales for all n-EDO tunings

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/hstraub64/OctatonicMOS.txt

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

10/9/2005 5:29:08 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@I...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/26tet.mid
>
> More recently, I've been using the "lemba" MOS (or technically DE,
> since it has a half-octave period), which in its most basic form
> has a 10-note scale of 6 large steps and 4 small steps to the
> octave (6x3 + 4x2). I put "lemba" in quotes since that's really
> the name of the temperament, but I don't have a specific name for
> the scale.

In the terminology proposed by Graham, this would be "unfair
bicycle". Or maybe "lemba" would be better?

>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/temp-porcupine.html
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/midi/porcupine-29.mid
>
> 33-ET doesn't appear to have much to recommend it, but I have a
> brief example on my augmented temperament page.
>
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/temp-augmented.html
> http://www.io.com/~hmiller/music/ex/aug33.mid
>

Hmm, sounds qwuite nice to me, that one.

Thanks for the examples!
--
Hans Straub

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/16/2005 5:38:11 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /hstraub64/NonatonicMOS.txt
Uploaded by : hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>
Description : Families of nonatatonic MOS scales for all n-EDO tunings

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/hstraub64/NonatonicMOS.txt

3/20/2007 8:13:44 PM

> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /WTC?/WTC Test.zip
> Uploaded by : thefractalgourmet <thefractalgourmet@...>
> Description : 24 Preludes & 23 Fugues from the WTC I & II
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/WTC%3F/WTC%20Test.zip
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files
>
> Regards,
>
> thefractalgourmet <thefractalgourmet@...>

Thanks for doing that!

I can't say I think this tuning is a very good one, or that
I like the sound of these MIDIs very much... I would encourage
you to try this experiment with several different tunings and
listen to them all as you go (if you haven't done this already).

-Carl

🔗Raintree Goldbach <thefractalgourmet@yahoo.com>

3/20/2007 8:47:14 PM

Carl,

i regularly reset the tuning for the sake of
comparison.

other than not liking the tuning, did you hear any
wolf tones, and/or was the tuning unplayable in any
key?

also, i have discovered that it is possible to create
many different tunings using only the 3/2 and 5/4
intervals, perhaps one of them will be more suitable.

however, do you agree that it has been clearly
established that a well temperament, or a reasonable
proximity of such, can be created using only 3/2 and
5/4?

thanks,

Raintree

____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

3/20/2007 8:49:19 PM

> Carl,
>
> i regularly reset the tuning for the sake of
> comparison.

Reset to what ... 12? Why not try some other
tunings also?

> other than not liking the tuning, did you hear any
> wolf tones, and/or was the tuning unplayable in any
> key?

I thought there were some real howlers in several
places, including F#.

> also, i have discovered that it is possible to create
> many different tunings using only the 3/2 and 5/4
> intervals, perhaps one of them will be more suitable.

You aren't the first person to discover that.

> however, do you agree that it has been clearly
> established that a well temperament, or a reasonable
> proximity of such, can be created using only 3/2 and
> 5/4?

Sure it can.

-Carl

🔗Raintree Goldbach <thefractalgourmet@yahoo.com>

3/20/2007 9:35:51 PM

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Carl,
> >
> > i regularly reset the tuning for the sake of
> > comparison.
>
> Reset to what ... 12? Why not try some other
> tunings also?

Certainly, i have tried a vast array of tunings.

> > other than not liking the tuning, did you hear any
> > wolf tones, and/or was the tuning unplayable in
> any
> > key?
>
> I thought there were some real howlers in several
> places, including F#.

interesting, would it be too much of an effort, given
your opinion of the scale, to give specific examples?

> > also, i have discovered that it is possible to
> create
> > many different tunings using only the 3/2 and 5/4
> > intervals, perhaps one of them will be more
> suitable.
>
> You aren't the first person to discover that.

could you mention a few so that i could research the
matter?

> > however, do you agree that it has been clearly
> > established that a well temperament, or a
> reasonable
> > proximity of such, can be created using only 3/2
> and
> > 5/4?
>
> Sure it can.

would you consider the scale to be a well temperament,
and did it sound better than you expected?

i will try to incorporate all of the feedback that i
have received into any future efforts.

thanks,

Raintree

____________________________________________________________________________________
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

3/23/2007 12:41:04 PM

> > Reset to what ... 12? Why not try some other
> > tunings also?
>
> Certainly, i have tried a vast array of tunings.

Good. If you keep that up, I suspect you'll find the
present scale isn't especially good for the WTC.

> interesting, would it be too much of an effort, given
> your opinion of the scale, to give specific examples?

I haven't had any time to listen to music in the last
few days. Maybe I will get a chance tomorrow (Sat).

> > > also, i have discovered that it is possible to
> > > create many different tunings using only the
> > > 3/2 and 5/4 intervals, perhaps one of them will
> > > be more suitable.
> >
> > You aren't the first person to discover that.
>
> could you mention a few so that i could research the
> matter?

Hm. Try looking in the Scala scale archive. Especially
under files starting with "smithgw" and then continuing
with either "maj" or "syn". Read the comments on these
files to uncover, in some cases, historical precedent.

Scales made of only 3/2 and 5/4 are called "5-limit
scales" around here. You can search the list archives
for that phrase as well.

> > > however, do you agree that it has been clearly
> > > established that a well temperament, or a
> > > reasonable proximity of such, can be created
> > > using only 3/2 and 5/4?
> >
> > Sure it can.

By the way, Gene just posted an extreme version of
this a few days ago -- an atom/schisma based thing
that's essentially identical to 12-tET.

> would you consider the scale to be a well temperament,
> and did it sound better than you expected?

It sounded about like I expected it to. I wouldn't
call it a well temperament because that term belongs
to Jorgensen, and I believe he defined it to exclude
scales with a 5th as flat as the one on F# here.

> i will try to incorporate all of the feedback that i
> have received into any future efforts.

Thanks for having an open mind and cordial demeanor.

-Carl

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

3/23/2007 1:33:24 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:

> By the way, Gene just posted an extreme version of
> this a few days ago -- an atom/schisma based thing
> that's essentially identical to 12-tET.

Discovered by Kirnberger, which is where the atom came from, I think.
It's not audibly distinguishable from 12-et and I don't know if
anything about it would make it useful for tuning purposes, but it's
a great theoretical example. It came up in my Fokker block search
because it is, in fact, a Fokker block, which is pretty cool. Hence
we establish the principle that it's possible for a Fokker block to
also be a well-temperament, though if there are any really useful
exemplars of that idea I don't know.

> It sounded about like I expected it to. I wouldn't
> call it a well temperament because that term belongs
> to Jorgensen, and I believe he defined it to exclude
> scales with a 5th as flat as the one on F# here.

Does anyone know where he set the limits for sharpness and flatness
of the fifths?

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

3/23/2007 3:26:32 PM

Regards,

justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

3/25/2009 9:01:58 AM

I'm surprised I'm the first to comment on this.. It's a
pretty neat composition, especially if it's your first!
What's the pps_7limit.scl scale? I don't see it in the
Scala archive.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>
> Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for
> Monophony", in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files
> /justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members
> /web/index.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>
>

🔗justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>

3/26/2009 12:35:46 AM

Hi Carl,

Thanks for your comment. By the way, the pps_7limit.scl scale is not a part of the Scala archive (perhaps it should be added to the archive for the next version of Scala). I posted this scale in my folder. Just for reference here are the ratios:

1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7 21/16 4/3 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1
1/1 is G-390 Hz.

Praveen Venkataramana (justin_tone52)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> I'm surprised I'm the first to comment on this.. It's a
> pretty neat composition, especially if it's your first!
> What's the pps_7limit.scl scale? I don't see it in the
> Scala archive.
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This email message is a notification to let you know that
> > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> > group.
> >
> > File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> > Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@>
> > Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for
> > Monophony", in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
> >
> > You can access this file at the URL:
> > /tuning/files
> > /justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
> >
> > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members
> > /web/index.htmlfiles
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > justin_tone52 <kleisma7@>
> >
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

3/26/2009 12:50:57 AM

Hi Praveen,

Can you tell us anything more about this piece? Is it
really your first microtonal composition? Have you written
for strings before, or do you play a stringed instrument?
What software (if any) was used?

Thanks, and please share more in the future!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "justin_tone52" <kleisma7@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Thanks for your comment. By the way, the pps_7limit.scl scale
> is not a part of the Scala archive (perhaps it should be added
> to the archive for the next version of Scala). I posted this
> scale in my folder. Just for reference here are the ratios:
>
> 1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7
> 21/16 4/3 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4
> 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1 1/1 is G-390 Hz.
>
> Praveen Venkataramana (justin_tone52)
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm surprised I'm the first to comment on this.. It's a
> > pretty neat composition, especially if it's your first!
> > What's the pps_7limit.scl scale? I don't see it in the
> > Scala archive.
> >
> > -Carl

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

3/26/2009 3:35:12 AM

Hi Praveen and Carl,

It's great to hear the updated version of this piece.
I love it, and have ever since i first heard it.

I helped Praveen with it (a tiny bit) 2 years ago,
by making a Tonescape file of the first 3 pages of
the score.

Praveen, let me know if you want me to upload that.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Praveen,
>
> Can you tell us anything more about this piece? Is it
> really your first microtonal composition? Have you written
> for strings before, or do you play a stringed instrument?
> What software (if any) was used?
>
> Thanks, and please share more in the future!
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "justin_tone52" <kleisma7@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carl,
> >
> > Thanks for your comment. By the way, the pps_7limit.scl scale
> > is not a part of the Scala archive (perhaps it should be added
> > to the archive for the next version of Scala). I posted this
> > scale in my folder. Just for reference here are the ratios:
> >
> > 1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7
> > 21/16 4/3 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4
> > 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1 1/1 is G-390 Hz.
> >
> > Praveen Venkataramana (justin_tone52)
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm surprised I'm the first to comment on this.. It's a
> > > pretty neat composition, especially if it's your first!
> > > What's the pps_7limit.scl scale? I don't see it in the
> > > Scala archive.
> > >
> > > -Carl

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

3/26/2009 4:36:58 AM

Praveen,

thank you for posting this well-composed piece that rewards repeated listens. It is so much more than just a demonstration of a particular tuning.

Kalle Aho

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>
> Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for Monophony", in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>
>

🔗justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>

3/26/2009 12:08:16 PM

Hi Carl, Kalle and Joe,

Thank you very much for your comments. I am glad you like this piece. I was inspired to write this piece after I read that Harry Partch, in 1933, had finished his cello adaptation and was engaged in writing just-intonation music for three adapted string instruments for Monophony (see more at http://sonic-arts.org/mclaren/partch/evolution.htm). This piece is supposed to reflect on the possibilities of a Partchian string family adaptation, but is by no means a reconstruction of Partch's unfinished string trio (for which no traces remain). And, yes, this is my first composition (microtonal and otherwise). I composed this piece about four years back, in the summer of 2005. Before composing this I had sketched several incomplete ideas (mostly in 12-tone equal temperament), which I consider academic exercises rather than serious presentable compositions, and I never completed them. But the String Trio was my first foray into the world of serious composition, and I have written about a dozen microtonal compositions since then.

As for string instruments, I play the cello and the hammered dulcimer, which I tune to various microtonal scales (mostly extended seven-limit just intonation). When I compose for other instruments, I use electronic simulations. For this piece, I used NoteWorthy Composer and SCALA to create the MIDI file.

Praveen Venkataramana

P.S. When composing this piece I did not think of the 33-tone scale I used as a Permutation Product Set, but rather as Tonality Diamond 1 3 5 7 9 15 21 35, which fits the Partchian theme.

Also, another piece I have composed around the same time as the String Trio is available at http://www.praveen.us/eofh.mp3. It is a symphonic prelude called "Explosion of Harmonics" and is written in the same scale as the String Trio, plus an additional 56/45 ratio.

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

3/26/2009 1:29:01 PM

This is good, Praveen! And this your first work too? I'm a semi-noob myself; but I specialize in 72-et and 11-limit.

Only thing I'd do differently is go all the way to 11-limit (11/8 instead of 48/35, etc.), but what you got works just fine.

~D.

(P.S. I'm still in extended lurk mode, working on a huge project that may or may not get finished in my lifetime.)

> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>
> Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for
> Monophony", in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> justin_tone52 <kleisma7@...>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

3/26/2009 1:42:16 PM

This is really nice!!

Can I try to render it with my Garritan Personal Orchestra sample set and
put it up for the group?

Chris

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@... <kleisma7%40yahoo.com>>
> Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for Monophony",
> in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
>
> /tuning/files/justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> justin_tone52 <kleisma7@... <kleisma7%40yahoo.com>>
>
>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

3/29/2009 12:57:46 PM

Hi Justin,

Thanks for your comment. By the way, the pps_7limit.scl scale is not a part
> of the Scala archive (perhaps it should be added to the archive for the next
> version of Scala). I posted this scale in my folder. Just for reference here
> are the ratios:
>
> 1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7 21/16 4/3
> 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15
> 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1
> 1/1 is G-390 Hz.
>
> Praveen Venkataramana (justin_tone52)
>

How did you construct this scale?
It's exactly the scale you get when following my theory of harmonic interval
permutations to the 8th harmonic and take just one octave.
Did you get it from my theory or another way?

1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7 21/16 4/3
48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9
8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1

Is one octave from:
1/1 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 4/3 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4
16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21
35/18 2/1 72/35 21/10 32/15 15/7 35/16 20/9 9/4 16/7 7/3 12/5 5/2 18/7 21/8
8/3 96/35 14/5 20/7 35/12 3/1
64/21 28/9 16/5 10/3 24/7 7/2 32/9 18/5 128/35 56/15 15/4 80/21 35/9 4/1
144/35 21/5 64/15 30/7 35/8 40/9 9/2
32/7 14/3 24/5 5/1 36/7 21/4 16/3 192/35 28/5 40/7 35/6 6/1 32/5 20/3 48/7
7/1 8/1

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

3/29/2009 1:10:52 PM

Ah I see it now it is the harmonic interval permutation scale indeed, looked
in your folder.That's great :D
Gives me a huge big smile on my face.
I haven't composed anything in it myself yet so it's the first composition
I'm hearing in this scale.

What logic / line of thinking did you use for the melodies and harmonies /
how did you compose it?

Marcel

2009/3/29 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> Hi Justin,
>
> Thanks for your comment. By the way, the pps_7limit.scl scale is not a part
>> of the Scala archive (perhaps it should be added to the archive for the next
>> version of Scala). I posted this scale in my folder. Just for reference here
>> are the ratios:
>>
>> 1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7 21/16 4/3
>> 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15
>> 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1
>> 1/1 is G-390 Hz.
>>
>> Praveen Venkataramana (justin_tone52)
>>
>
> How did you construct this scale?
> It's exactly the scale you get when following my theory of harmonic
> interval permutations to the 8th harmonic and take just one octave.
> Did you get it from my theory or another way?
>
> 1/1 36/35 21/20 16/15 15/14 35/32 10/9 9/8 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 9/7 21/16 4/3
> 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9
> 8/5 5/3 12/7 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21 35/18 2/1
>
> Is one octave from:
> 1/1 8/7 7/6 6/5 5/4 4/3 48/35 7/5 10/7 35/24 3/2 32/21 14/9 8/5 5/3 12/7
> 7/4 16/9 9/5 64/35 28/15 15/8 40/21
> 35/18 2/1 72/35 21/10 32/15 15/7 35/16 20/9 9/4 16/7 7/3 12/5 5/2 18/7
> 21/8 8/3 96/35 14/5 20/7 35/12 3/1
> 64/21 28/9 16/5 10/3 24/7 7/2 32/9 18/5 128/35 56/15 15/4 80/21 35/9 4/1
> 144/35 21/5 64/15 30/7 35/8 40/9 9/2
> 32/7 14/3 24/5 5/1 36/7 21/4 16/3 192/35 28/5 40/7 35/6 6/1 32/5 20/3 48/7
> 7/1 8/1
>
> Marcel
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

3/29/2009 11:41:57 PM

> yes, this is my first composition (microtonal and otherwise)
> I composed this piece about four years back, in the summer
> of 2005. Before composing this I had sketched several incomplete
> ideas (mostly in 12-tone equal temperament), which I consider
> academic exercises rather than serious presentable compositions,
> and I never completed them. But the String Trio was my first
> foray into the world of serious composition, and I have written
> about a dozen microtonal compositions since then.
>
> As for string instruments, I play the cello and the hammered
> dulcimer, which I tune to various microtonal scales (mostly
> extended seven-limit just intonation). When I compose for other
> instruments, I use electronic simulations. For this piece, I
> used NoteWorthy Composer and SCALA to create the MIDI file.
>
> Also, another piece I have composed around the same time as
> the String Trio is available at http://www.praveen.us/eofh.mp3.
> It is a symphonic prelude called "Explosion of Harmonics" and
> is written in the same scale as the String Trio, plus an
> additional 56/45 ratio.

Hi Praveen,

Sorry for the late response. I initially looked at this post
at work but didn't open my work computer this weekend until
just now.

Thanks for the details. I like _Explosion_ also, and would
welcome a similar rendering of _Trio_, and anything else you
are ready to share. I'm sure others here would also.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

3/30/2009 7:38:43 AM

Praveen,

Nice piece! I enjoyed it, even though I heard it through a very mediocre soundfont rendering with Timidity++....I always prefer a nicely rendered mp3/ogg with sounds of the composer's choice instead of MIDI...any chance you'd let Chris render this with Garritan? Or you render it yourself?

-Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> This is really nice!!
>
> Can I try to render it with my Garritan Personal Orchestra sample set and
> put it up for the group?
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > This email message is a notification to let you know that
> > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> > group.
> >
> > File : /justin_tone52's folder/stringtrio.mid
> > Uploaded by : justin_tone52 <kleisma7@... <kleisma7%40yahoo.com>>
> > Description : My first microtonal composition "String Trio for Monophony",
> > in the pps_7limit.scl scale with G as 1/1
> >
> > You can access this file at the URL:
> >
> > /tuning/files/justin_tone52%27s%20folder/stringtrio.mid
> >
> > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> >
> > http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > justin_tone52 <kleisma7@... <kleisma7%40yahoo.com>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/4/2009 9:51:26 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Marcel/Beethoven/3equali_andante_JI.mid
Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@...>
Description : First part of Drei Equali Andante in 7-limit JI

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/3equali_andante_JI.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

mdevelde <m.develde@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/5/2009 9:53:24 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Marcel/Beethoven/3equali_andante_JI_5limit.mid
Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@...>
Description : Beethoven Drei Equali - Andante in 5-limit JI. Correct way to do JI.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/3equali_andante_JI_5limit.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

mdevelde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/5/2009 9:56:35 AM

Finally got it right :)Will finish the entire piece soon.

Marcel

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/6/2009 8:25:56 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid
Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@...>
Description : Beethoven, Drei Equali - Andante, in Just Intonation.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

mdevelde <m.develde@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/6/2009 9:30:09 PM

hahahaaaa :D:D:Dit's soooo pretty!
I solved the comma pump problem and so many more things with this
and it follows my theory perfectly, could only solve it with my theory.
i can now tune all music perfectly :D:D
i was right all along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/6/2009 9:41:36 PM

Ohyeah and offcourse all melodies are perfect too, no comma shifts at all.And
all melodies move only with 25/14, 16/15, 27/25 stepsizes and their products
(10/9 = 16/15 + 25/24, 9/8 = 27/25 + 16/15, etc).
Btw it's absolutely full of 27/25 steps in melodies just like I predicted a
while back with my base modes :)

Marcel

2009/4/7 Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

> hahahaaaa :D:D:Dit's soooo pretty!
> I solved the comma pump problem and so many more things with this
> and it follows my theory perfectly, could only solve it with my theory.
> i can now tune all music perfectly :D:D
> i was right all along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/7/2009 7:52:07 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid
> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@...>
> Description : Beethoven, Drei Equali - Andante, in Just Intonation.
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> mdevelde <m.develde@...>
>
Hi Marcel,

I couldn't find yesterday's Beethoven file again today to compare. This file is in different tuning than yesterday's, right, or is it my imagination? I distinctly remember thinking that it sounded very in tune and beautiful except for the suspended fourth interval which (no offence) sounded slightly flat to my ears. I was going to ask what ratio it was and whether you thought it sounds different to me because I'm accustomed to 12 tet. Or could it be that in just intonation I might be hearing the chord from the fourth as root rather than as a suspension from the tonic i.e. perhaps we need two different intervals for two different functions?

Thanks

Rick

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/7/2009 8:21:25 AM

>
> I couldn't find yesterday's Beethoven file again today to compare. This
> file is in different tuning than yesterday's, right, or is it my
> imagination? I distinctly remember thinking that it sounded very in tune and
> beautiful except for the suspended fourth interval which (no offence)
> sounded slightly flat to my ears. I was going to ask what ratio it was and
> whether you thought it sounds different to me because I'm accustomed to 12
> tet. Or could it be that in just intonation I might be hearing the chord
> from the fourth as root rather than as a suspension from the tonic i.e.
> perhaps we need two different intervals for two different functions?
>
> Thanks
>

Hi Rick,

Yesterdays file was only the first few bars, I had not finished the entire
piece yet.
This file is in thesame tuning only it's the full piece this time.

Yes many of the chords are sharp or flat compared to their most consonant
translations from 12tet.
However I still see them as correct chords and they do occur in my theory of
harmony (all chords are contructed from low limit just harmonic intervals.
I personally like how all the chords sound, I did a wrong transcription a
while back where I made all the chords as consonant as possible but it
sounded way too happy and emotionally flat (besides other faults like out of
tune melodies)
For me the most revealing way to listen to the music is to listen to all the
melodies, and let the chords make the colour.
The least pleasant way to listen is to analytically listen to each and every
chord individually and listen how consonant it sounds / if it "beats" or not
etc, but then you're not really listening to the music imho.

Marcel

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

4/7/2009 6:39:44 PM

Marcel de Velde wrote:
> hahahaaaa :D:D:D
> it's soooo pretty!
> I solved the comma pump problem and so many more things with this
> and it follows my theory perfectly, could only solve it with my theory.
> i can now tune all music perfectly :D:D
> i was right all along!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

I know, don't feed the trolls and all that. But congratulations! This may be the very worst thing I've ever heard on this list!

I know, he'll probably look at the numbers, realize what he did wrong *this* time, and put up yet another version, which in turn will be the one and only *perfect* tuning of this piece. So predictable. I don't know why I even bother listening to them any more.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/7/2009 6:52:44 PM

> Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...
>
> I know, don't feed the trolls and all that. But congratulations! This
> may be the very worst thing I've ever heard on this list!
>
> I know, he'll probably look at the numbers, realize what he did wrong
> *this* time, and put up yet another version, which in turn will be the
> one and only *perfect* tuning of this piece. So predictable. I don't
> know why I even bother listening to them any more.
>

Hehe, no actually the numbers look like shit on this one :)
But I'm sticking to this one. It makes perfect sense in a much deeper way.

Btw I warned about listening to only the consonance of the individual chords
a few posts back.
But I understand it's hard for tuning list members to let go of this way of
listening.
I also played it to several non musicians and they all thought it sounds
perfect and natural and much better than 12tet.
And they usually say things sound like crap when I play perfect consonant
chords to them (with comma pumps and such, like this piece)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/7/2009 8:05:41 PM

Made an mp3 rendering:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mp3

Sorry for the low quality but all I have right now is an SY99, which is
amazing for electronic / ambient sounds but not so much for a realistic
trombone quartet :)
Nevertheless tried to make it so that you can get a feel for how it would be
played by a real trombone quartet (loads of reverb helps the sound).
Still thesame expressionless midi file though, should have programmed
volume, tempo, timbre changes etc but too lazy.
Will do so when I get a good sample library later.

Btw realised I also forgot to link on this list to the 12tet midi version
for comparison, so here it is:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/3equali1_12tet_trombone.mid
And for your convinience the JI again:
/tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/7/2009 8:54:11 PM

Btw the thing about this transcription I had the most trouble accepting is
the ending chord.As you can no doubt hear, it's not consonant (while the
preceding chord is)
A dissonant ending chord, hard to accept when it could just as well be
played consonant.

The consonant chord would be D 1/1 - A 3/2 - d 2/1 - f 5/2
A perfect 2:3:4:5 ending chord.

But in my transcription the ending chord becomes D 1/1 - A 40/27 - d 2/1 - f
5/2
Dissonant 54:80:108:135 ending chord

Its construction is not 1/1 + 3/2 + 4/3 + 5/4
But for instance 1/1 + 9/8 + 6/5 + 5/4
or 1/1 + 6/5 + 9/8 + 5/4
In some inversion with transpositions of notes.

I've tried to cheat my own theory of how to analyse, and made the ending
chords the consonant 2:3:4:5 to see how it would sound.
It's easy to do so, it doesn't even give a noticable comma shift.
But yet it sounds wrong. 1/1 3/2 2/1 5/2 sounds wrong and flat and out of
tune as the ending chord of this piece.
And 1/1 40/27 2/1 5/2 sounds right to me(and it's right according to my
theory).
It's a sad ending, very coloured. And it keeps the integrity of the
melodies.
The reason it is an ending chord has more to do with how it's used than the
chord itself in the this case. It's built up to be the ending chord by the
preceding chords and rhythm, and made more strongly by repeating it 3 times.
No I don't think Beethoven ment to write a 1/1 40/27 2/1 5/2 ending chord,
but still the whole piece leads to the ending chord beeing a very sad and
emotionally loaded chord. I think it's heard as 1/1 40/27 2/1 5/2 even when
played in 12tet.

I'll be happy to give a transcription of this piece and a full analisys and
explanation of my way of analysing this piece (which works for all music)
and my theory of harmony.
But it seems to me that (as expected) there is not much interest for this :)
I was guessing maybe 2 people could hear it properly and would not reject
the dissonant chords.
Time will tell.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/7/2009 9:29:50 PM

Ah btw the mp3 is a semitone higher, will fix that later.
I also want to say 2 more things.
First thing is that it would be a good idea to consciously listen to this
piece by listening to the 4 different melodies.
Focus your attention to the melodies and you will hear that each and every
melody is in tune and beautifull in its own right.
Not that this is required but it seems to me people here have trained their
ears to listen mainly to chord consonance.
This may be why it seems to me the average person will hear this piece as
correct (though offcourse deviating from 12tet) and list members get
offended by certain chords.

Second thing I wanted to say is this.
With comma pump situations, there are only a limited number of solutions:

1) Tempering it with either an equal division or something like a meantone.
Non JI.
I think this is wrong and it allways floats and loses colour etc.

2) Adaptive JI. I think this is wrong too, and it sounds wrong to me. It
makes the melodies shift / drift / out of tune and makes every chord
consonant losing in my opinion colour etc.

3) JI with comma shifts. I used to think this is the solution but no longer
think so.
It's often impossible to not make melodies shift aswell making them sound
out of tune, problems with held notes etc.

4) Letting the pitch of the whole piece drift up or down. Sounds wrong and
doesn't allways work when there is one long held note during the comma pump
situation etc.

5) Make everything very high prime limits and convince yourself that it is
correct, like 19/13 or 83/67 etc in normal chords and melodies / music.

6) JI without comma shifts. Making chords "out of tune", or so it seems at
first but I've shown you can "re-interpret / correctly interpret" chords to
more dissonant yet perfectly valid JI chords which have thesame underlying
notes in 12tet. I beleive now that this is the correct way to do it now, and
I've developed a working theory for how to analyse which chords have a more
complex structure and what their structure is.
This is also the only way which keeps melodies 100% pure JI without crazy
stepsizes or any shifts whatsoever.

Take your pick.
You have to pick from the above list as to my knowledge their is no other
way to do it than the ways described above. (if you know of another way / I
left one out please tell)
And with all ways other than adaptive JI you have to accept certain chords
in a form that is not the most consonant JI form of that chord.
For melodies the choice is clear offcourse.

Marcel

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/7/2009 11:08:52 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > I couldn't find yesterday's Beethoven file again today to compare. This
> > file is in different tuning than yesterday's, right, or is it my
> > imagination? I distinctly remember thinking that it sounded very in tune and
> > beautiful except for the suspended fourth interval which (no offence)
> > sounded slightly flat to my ears. I was going to ask what ratio it was and
> > whether you thought it sounds different to me because I'm accustomed to 12
> > tet. Or could it be that in just intonation I might be hearing the chord
> > from the fourth as root rather than as a suspension from the tonic i.e.
> > perhaps we need two different intervals for two different functions?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Yesterdays file was only the first few bars, I had not finished the entire
> piece yet.
> This file is in thesame tuning only it's the full piece this time.
>
> Yes many of the chords are sharp or flat compared to their most consonant
> translations from 12tet.
> However I still see them as correct chords and they do occur in my theory of
> harmony (all chords are contructed from low limit just harmonic intervals.
> I personally like how all the chords sound, I did a wrong transcription a
> while back where I made all the chords as consonant as possible but it
> sounded way too happy and emotionally flat (besides other faults like out of
> tune melodies)
> For me the most revealing way to listen to the music is to listen to all the
> melodies, and let the chords make the colour.
> The least pleasant way to listen is to analytically listen to each and every
> chord individually and listen how consonant it sounds / if it "beats" or not
> etc, but then you're not really listening to the music imho.
>
> Marcel
>
Ah, it wasn't finished then. Sounds great now. Yeah many times I've had people saying their horn part sounds weird until they hear it with the full band.

Rick

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/7/2009 11:15:06 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Made an mp3 rendering:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mp3
>
> Sorry for the low quality but all I have right now is an SY99, which is
> amazing for electronic / ambient sounds but not so much for a realistic
> trombone quartet :)
> Nevertheless tried to make it so that you can get a feel for how it would be
> played by a real trombone quartet (loads of reverb helps the sound).
> Still thesame expressionless midi file though, should have programmed
> volume, tempo, timbre changes etc but too lazy.
> Will do so when I get a good sample library later.
>
> Btw realised I also forgot to link on this list to the 12tet midi version
> for comparison, so here it is:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/3equali1_12tet_trombone.mid
> And for your convinience the JI again:
> /tuning/files/Marcel/Beethoven/MdV_3equali1_JI.mid
>
> Marcel
>
Actually Marcel there is one exception; the diminished chord sounds very dissonant. This is because symmetric chords are a consequence of equal distribution, not tonality.

-Rick

🔗djtrancendance@...

4/8/2009 3:46:29 AM

--Btw I warned about listening to only the consonance of the individual chords a few posts --back.
Hmm...just a thought; might it be an idea to try and make the entire series of all notes into a chord? That way it would be impossible to make a bad chord. True, any one chord would likely be 80-85% as consonant as a pure due to needed error lost to one pure interval to make, say, a far less pure one next to it sound decent...but it would likely eliminate much of the need for music theory to help guard against sour combinations (as it does in 12TET).

--But I understand it's hard for tuning list members to let go of this way of listening.
--I also played it to several non musicians and they all thought it sounds perfect and natural --and much better than 12tet.
Crap, assuming you did this using blind tests (IE where the listeners where not told in either way tell which was which) then you are on the same side of fence as I am: half the list hates your work, but you have at least a small following of people who do. I've also experienced the situation where 95% of the time listeners think my scales are inferior to 12TET and, when I come up with something a good 70% or more of the time they think is better is when I post it.

One thing is for sure: good theory or not people on here seem VERY irritated by almost any scale created by members that doesn't have 4 PHDs and 5 thesis-type papers to back it up. This time around, Marcel, although I admit often it bugs me too you keep talking about these "revolutionary scales"...this time you really
provided sound-file examples and gave a more than fair amount of options for people to decide if they actually like the sound of a scale.

It's a shame people can't seem to respect much effort to make new scales here that don't meet "I'm famous and have hundreds of thesis have been done on my scales" standards...but, for sure, if you have dedicated people who like your scales via sound-example you must be doing at least something right. :-)

--- On Tue, 4/7/09, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] New file uploaded to tuning
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, April 7, 2009, 6:52 PM

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

I know, don't feed the trolls and all that. But congratulations! This

may be the very worst thing I've ever heard on this list!

I know, he'll probably look at the numbers, realize what he did wrong

*this* time, and put up yet another version, which in turn will be the

one and only *perfect* tuning of this piece. So predictable. I don't

know why I even bother listening to them any more.
Hehe, no actually the numbers look like shit on this one :)But I'm sticking to this one. It makes perfect sense in a much deeper way.

Btw I warned about listening to only the consonance of the individual chords a few posts back.But I understand it's hard for tuning list members to let go of this way of listening.
I also played it to several non musicians and they all thought it sounds perfect and natural and much better than 12tet.And they usually say things sound like crap when I play perfect consonant chords to them (with comma pumps and such, like this piece)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/8/2009 9:02:32 AM

Hi Rick,

I'm very glad you mostly like it :)

Actually Marcel there is one exception; the diminished chord sounds very
> dissonant. This is because symmetric chords are a consequence of equal
> distribution, not tonality.

The diminished chord is actually in its most consonant 5-limit form I think.
Only 7-limit produces several slightly more consonant diminished chords (you
find them in 9-limit permutation) but they're out of place here as it's a
"diatonic" 5-limit piece in my opinion.

There are 2 constructions for 5-limit dimished chords.
(maybe there are more constructions with thesame simplicity, it's possible I
missed one, have to write a program to check them all)

1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5

1/1 : 6/5 45/32 27/16 2/1
6/5 : 75/64 45/32 5/3 2/1
45/32: 6/5 64/45 128/75 2/1
27/16: 32/27 64/45 5/3 2/1

1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 10/9 + 5/4 + 6/5

1/1 : 32/27 25/18 5/3 2/1
32/27: 75/64 45/32 27/16 2/1
25/18: 6/5 36/25 128/75 2/1
5/3 : 6/5 64/45 5/3 2/1

The first one is fairly close to 12tet.
The one used in this piece is the second one though.
It's very colourfull indeed because of the 2 consecutive 6/5, but not less
consonant than the first (depending on defenition of consonance)

It's heard in the piece at around 50 seconds.

20 9120 9120 note (1/1) 474 80 9120 note (45/32) 474 80 9120 note (12/5)
474 80 9120 note (10/3) 474 80 21 9600 9600 note (9/10) 474 80 9600 note
(3/2) 474 80 9600 note (9/4) 474 80 9600 note (18/5) 474 80

Seen from the lowest note in one octave you get 1/1 6/5 45/32 5/3

I like the sound of it myself.
But it's indeed the part that deviates most from 12tet in the whole piece.
I personally don't beleive diminished chords should be perfectly symetrical
(in other words should be 12tet), I also so no need for this to be so as the
5-limit diminished chords will allow you to do everything in all of their
inversions.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/8/2009 9:30:43 AM

>
> Hmm...just a thought; might it be an idea to try and make the entire
> series of all notes into a chord? That way it would be impossible to make a
> bad chord. True, any one chord would likely be 80-85% as consonant as a
> pure due to needed error lost to one pure interval to make, say, a far less
> pure one next to it sound decent...but it would likely eliminate much of the
> need for music theory to help guard against sour combinations (as it does in
> 12TET).
>

Hmm I feel like writing a very long story about my thoughts on this
approach. It has parts I like in certain situation but also many parts I
don't like.
But don't have the time now to write this long a story, so I'll say my 2
most important objection.
It seems to me that with this approach there are only a few possible scales
(with many dissonant chords) that will allow melodies to stay pure.
Only 12 tone scales built out of only 25/24 16/15 and 27/25 stepsizes for
ALL their stepsizes confirm to this.
This however clashes with your theory as I don't think hitting all 12 tones
of the above scales will produce the most consonant chords.
Secondly, when making a 12 tone scale that is consonant as 1 chord you will
no doubt lose all the beautifull character and colours that music is capable
of. Just like 12tet, but in different ways.
I can't beleive in a theory that either makes melodies go off, or that
doesn't allow the full colours that music is capable of.

Crap, assuming you did this using blind tests (IE where the listeners
> where not told in either way tell which was which) then you are on the same
> side of fence as I am: half the list hates your work, but you have at least
> a small following of people who do.
>

> I've also experienced the situation where 95% of the time listeners think
> my scales are inferior to 12TET and, when I come up with something a good
> 70% or more of the time they think is better is when I post it.
>
> One thing is for sure: good theory or not people on here seem VERY
> irritated by almost any scale created by members that doesn't have 4 PHDs
> and 5 thesis-type papers to back it up. This time around, Marcel, although
> I admit often it bugs me too you keep talking about these "revolutionary
> scales"...this time you really provided sound-file examples and gave a more
> than fair amount of options for people to decide if they actually like the
> sound of a scale.
>

Yeah sorry about that, I can sometimes get an overly excited phase before my
more objective critical phase.
Too often a victim of my own temperament :)
It probably because of the pressure I put on myself to succeed. Very
stubborn guy, won't stop till I succeed haha

It's a shame people can't seem to respect much effort to make new scales
> here that don't meet "I'm famous and have hundreds of thesis have been done
> on my scales" standards...but, for sure, if you have dedicated people who
> like your scales via sound-example you must be doing at least something
> right. :-)
>

Uhh I truly hope I'm going in the right direction. I atleast think it's
worth the effort to fully explore.
But right now only Rick and perhaps you? have given any positive words about
this piece.
For the rest only justin_tone has explored the scales my theory gives
(though used another system / tonality diamonds in his actual use of them)
So I feel just as alone as you :)

Marcel

🔗djtrancendance@...

4/8/2009 10:54:45 AM

--It seems to me that with this approach there are only a few
possible --scales (with many dissonant chords) that will allow melodies
to stay --pure. Only 12 tone scales built out of only 25/24 16/15 and 27/25 --stepsizes for ALL their stepsizes confirm to this.
    Agreed, for 12 it's most likely not possible...the furthest I've managed to go is 9 tones. I have 12-tone tunings with 9-tone subsets that sound good when played "as a chord"...but not 12-tone scales. Anything over 9 and, I've found, melodies begin to sound impure.
********************************************************************
--Secondly, when making a 12 tone scale that is consonant as 1 chord
--you will no doubt lose all the beautifull character and colours that
--music is capable of. Just like 12tet, but in different ways.
    My take, the loss of tonal color is a problem, but mostly when complying to the harmonic series (IE x/32,x/16,x/8,x/4 'LCD of 2" and x/24,x/12,x/3 "LCD of 3' fractions...which are the best I've found so far as making 9-note-chord-per-octave type scales).
    Its a primary reason I have started using noble numbers and not just JI...to be able to get away with more color without "breaking a/the series". Noble numbers appear to let me cheat a bit. :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

--Yeah sorry about that, I can sometimes get an overly excited phase --before my more objective critical phase
What I meant to say is...you seem to be in the same position I am: making new scales and getting criticized too much for not having "supporting papers". In other words, you are facing the same
nastiness in response I face when I realize my scales on here...welcome to
the club! :-)
BTW, if you are one of those aforementioned PHD's, don't worry: I wasn't talking about you just general struggles for guys like us who are trying to justify our new scales.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is, so far as rational-numbered scales I've heard, this sounds quite good...gives me a very clear sense of where the tones are going. That is a LOT better than so many other micro-tonal scales where it sounds like the musician playing them simply forget to
"tune their strings"...your scale sounds steady and confident; even if some people think some of the math is wrong for it (if in doubt, I listen to my ears, and not math, anyhow: I use math to summarize/match patterns my ears find).

Anyhow, sounds good to my ears...and keep it up... :-)

-Michael

--- On Wed, 4/8/09, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

From: Marcel de Velde
<m.develde@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] New file uploaded to tuning
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, April 8, 2009, 9:30 AM

Hmm...just a thought; might it be an idea to try and make the entire series of all notes into a chord? That way it would be impossible to make a bad chord. True, any one chord would likely be 80-85% as consonant as a pure due to needed error lost to one pure interval to make, say, a far less pure one next to it sound decent...but it would likely eliminate much of the need for music theory to help guard against sour combinations (as it does in 12TET).

Hmm I feel like writing a very long story about my thoughts on this approach. It has parts I like in certain situation but also many parts I don't like.But don't have the time now to write this long a story, so I'll say my 2 most important objection.
It seems to me that with this approach there are only a few possible scales (with many dissonant chords) that will allow melodies to stay pure.Only 12 tone scales built out of only 25/24 16/15 and 27/25 stepsizes for ALL their stepsizes confirm to this.
This however clashes with your theory as I don't think hitting all 12 tones of the above scales will produce the most consonant chords.Secondly, when making a 12 tone scale that is consonant as 1 chord you will no doubt lose all the beautifull character and colours that music is capable of. Just like 12tet, but in different ways.
I can't beleive in a theory that either makes melodies go off, or that doesn't allow the full colours that music is capable of.

Crap, assuming you did this using blind tests (IE where the listeners where not told in either way tell which was which) then you are on the same side of fence as I am: half the list hates your work, but you have at least a small following of people who do.

Yeah a little bit of crap indeed, but also not as I personally know these people and they have been brutally honest with me before about things sounding bad and they know they can do this.
But yeah not as good as a blind test indeed.
I've also experienced the situation where 95% of the time listeners think my scales are inferior to 12TET and, when I come up with something a good 70% or more of the time they think is better is when I post it.

Yeah sorry about that, I can sometimes get an overly excited phase before my more objective critical phase.
Too often a victim of my own temperament :)It probably because of the pressure I put on myself to succeed. Very stubborn guy, won't stop till I succeed haha

It's a shame people can't seem to respect much effort to make new scales here that don't meet "I'm famous and have hundreds of thesis have been done on my scales" standards... but, for sure, if you have dedicated people who like your scales via sound-example you must be doing at least something right. :-)

Uhh I truly hope I'm going in the right direction. I atleast think it's worth the effort to fully explore.But right now only Rick and perhaps you? have given any positive words about this piece.
For the rest only justin_tone has explored the scales my theory gives (though used another system / tonality diamonds in his actual use of them)So I feel just as alone as you :)
Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/8/2009 11:11:11 AM

> Agreed, for 12 it's most likely not possible...the furthest I've managed
> to go is 9 tones. I have 12-tone tunings with 9-tone subsets that sound
> good when played "as a chord"...but not 12-tone scales. Anything over 9
> and, I've found, melodies begin to sound impure.
>

Well, I don't know about how this will sound when played as one chord but
you could for instance build a scale like this:

1/1 25/24 9/8 6/5 5/4 4/3 25/18 3/2 8/5 5/3 9/5 15/8 2/1
|
25/24 27/25 16/15 25/24 16/15 25/24 27/25 16/15 25/24 27/25 25/24 16/15

Below are the interval steps, as you can see you can use every single
interval in this scale in melodies.
There are several such scales of interval steps 25/24 16/15 27/25

> BTW, if you are one of those aforementioned PHD's, don't worry: I wasn't
> talking about you just general struggles for guys like us who are trying to
> justify our new scales.
>

Nah I'm a highschool dropout ;)

Anyhow, sounds good to my ears...and keep it up... :-)

Thanks :) will do..

Marcel

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@...>

4/8/2009 5:48:24 PM

rick_ballan wrote:

> Ah, it wasn't finished then. Sounds great now.
> > Rick Seriously? Did you overlook the howling wolf in the very first chord? Well, if the whole piece was tuned that way you could call it a stylistic effect, but there's no need to use JI in that case. As it is, it's just incoherent. The most dissonant chord in the whole piece, every time it occurs, is the tonic!

(No, it doesn't count that the melodies sound good individually. You're not hearing the melodies one by one, you're hearing the harmony of all voices together. Any part that sounds wrong ruins the effect.)

🔗djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

4/8/2009 6:28:52 PM

Chords like the ones the come in at 13 seconds, 27 seconds, 31 seconds, 51, 57,1:05...do sound terribly tense. I didn't think the first chord was particularly bad; dissonant, but in the same way the "fizzy" high end of a snare is.

On the other hand, other chords like those at 6 seconds, 14 seconds, 19 seconds, 23 seconds, 45 seconds, 59 seconds...all sound quite different and quite good.

All in all, I think part of this show huge potential, but others just ruin its listen-ability by being too tense. The scale's strongest point, perhaps, is that it's pretty easy to tell what's coming up next, which makes the dissonance a lot more tolerable when it does hit.

-Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> rick_ballan wrote:
>
> > Ah, it wasn't finished then. Sounds great now.
> >
> > Rick
>
> Seriously? Did you overlook the howling wolf in the very first chord?
> Well, if the whole piece was tuned that way you could call it a
> stylistic effect, but there's no need to use JI in that case. As it is,
> it's just incoherent. The most dissonant chord in the whole piece, every
> time it occurs, is the tonic!
>
> (No, it doesn't count that the melodies sound good individually. You're
> not hearing the melodies one by one, you're hearing the harmony of all
> voices together. Any part that sounds wrong ruins the effect.)
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/9/2009 7:47:52 AM

Hi Herman,

Seriously? Did you overlook the howling wolf in the very first chord?
> Well, if the whole piece was tuned that way you could call it a
> stylistic effect, but there's no need to use JI in that case. As it is,
> it's just incoherent. The most dissonant chord in the whole piece, every
> time it occurs, is the tonic!
>
> (No, it doesn't count that the melodies sound good individually. You're
> not hearing the melodies one by one, you're hearing the harmony of all
> voices together. Any part that sounds wrong ruins the effect.)
>

Funnt thing about the first chord and the first part as a whole is that I
just discovered that my verion does it exactly thesame as my favorite
recording by a real trombone quartet. It's clearly audible.
I'll upload it to my own page soon and link it here.
When you play the first chord as 1/1 4/3 8/5 instad of the 1/1 27/20 8/5 as
it's played in my transcription, it sounds wrong.
It doesn't capture the right feeling, and you get into comma shift and chord
problems right away in the next sections.

Not that I'm saying the trombone quartet recording I have is any proof that
it is correct this way.
But it does sound correct and other ways don't (i've tried many).
Infact the first 15 measures / 40 seconds I'm most sure about of the whole
piece.

Marcel

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/9/2009 8:38:07 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> I'm very glad you mostly like it :)
>
> Actually Marcel there is one exception; the diminished chord sounds very
> > dissonant. This is because symmetric chords are a consequence of equal
> > distribution, not tonality.
>
>
> The diminished chord is actually in its most consonant 5-limit form I think.
> Only 7-limit produces several slightly more consonant diminished chords (you
> find them in 9-limit permutation) but they're out of place here as it's a
> "diatonic" 5-limit piece in my opinion.
>
> There are 2 constructions for 5-limit dimished chords.
> (maybe there are more constructions with thesame simplicity, it's possible I
> missed one, have to write a program to check them all)
>
> 1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5
>
> 1/1 : 6/5 45/32 27/16 2/1
> 6/5 : 75/64 45/32 5/3 2/1
> 45/32: 6/5 64/45 128/75 2/1
> 27/16: 32/27 64/45 5/3 2/1
>
>
> 1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 10/9 + 5/4 + 6/5
>
> 1/1 : 32/27 25/18 5/3 2/1
> 32/27: 75/64 45/32 27/16 2/1
> 25/18: 6/5 36/25 128/75 2/1
> 5/3 : 6/5 64/45 5/3 2/1
>
> The first one is fairly close to 12tet.
> The one used in this piece is the second one though.
> It's very colourfull indeed because of the 2 consecutive 6/5, but not less
> consonant than the first (depending on defenition of consonance)
>
> It's heard in the piece at around 50 seconds.
>
> 20 9120 9120 note (1/1) 474 80 9120 note (45/32) 474 80 9120 note (12/5)
> 474 80 9120 note (10/3) 474 80 21 9600 9600 note (9/10) 474 80 9600 note
> (3/2) 474 80 9600 note (9/4) 474 80 9600 note (18/5) 474 80
>
> Seen from the lowest note in one octave you get 1/1 6/5 45/32 5/3
>
> I like the sound of it myself.
> But it's indeed the part that deviates most from 12tet in the whole piece.
> I personally don't beleive diminished chords should be perfectly symetrical
> (in other words should be 12tet), I also so no need for this to be so as the
> 5-limit diminished chords will allow you to do everything in all of their
> inversions.
>
> Marcel
>
Hi Marcel,

Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what the convention of using + between intervals means in <1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5>.

But as for the diminished chords, <1/1:6/5 45/32 27/16> and so on, forgive me for thinking out aloud but I do feel that you might be mixing up worlds. As I said, your tonal chords sound very good in whole numbers, but symmetrical chords are an entirely different matter. Firstly, both in theory and in practice, it seems to me that the whole point of a dim 5th interval is that we can't tell which note is the tonic. This translates theoretically in the fact that 1:sqrt2 = sqrt2:2 (i.e. quite literally 2/sqrt2 = sqrt2) so we can't tell which is the tonic. The same principle of course holds for the dim chord 1:2^(1/3),:2^(1/2),:2^(2/3),:2.

Secondly, Beethoven did write in 12 edo tuning so that we can rightly assume that he chose this chord in this place for a reason. As you know, lowering each note of a dim chord by a semitone produces a dom 7 chord, each one min 3rds apart. Beethoven, like Bach, is renown for 'punning' on the fact that relative maj and min are minor 3rds apart so that for eg replacing G7 with G#dim leads to Amin instead of C maj. So I think that getting a good dim chord in a Beethoven tuning would be an important priority.

With the risk of sounding like a shopping list, 'thirdly', my very first post on this list was asking you guys whether the min 3rd as 6/5 could not be substituted by 19/16, simply because the 5 in the denominator did not produce the tonic (and minor keys are just as common as major)i.e. in contrast 2/1, 3/2 and 5/4 all have 2^N in the denominator. I also noticed that this interval didn't produce good b5 or may 6 either. eg the b5 should be (6/5)^2 = 36/25, which isn't that good a flat fifth. And as I have also been saying lately that, due to the limits of hearing, the irrationals might be rational numbers after all, your interval 45/32 is much closer to sqrt2. Would it be outside of 5-limit to use 19/16 45/32 and 32/19 or something? Or even 19/16 (19/16)^2 = 1.41015625 and (19/16)^3 = 1.67456055, or are these numbers too large for 5-limit? Another possibility would be taking 45/32 from 19/16 which would be 1.66992188 for the maj 6.

Many Regards

Rick

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/9/2009 10:19:00 AM

Hi Rick,

Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what the convention of using + between
> intervals means in <1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5>.
>

It's not any ignorance on your part. The + thing is my way of looking at how
harmony is constructed.
See my post a few threads back about the possible construction of harmony
and melody.

> But as for the diminished chords, <1/1:6/5 45/32 27/16> and so on, forgive
> me for thinking out aloud but I do feel that you might be mixing up worlds.
> As I said, your tonal chords sound very good in whole numbers, but
> symmetrical chords are an entirely different matter. Firstly, both in theory
> and in practice, it seems to me that the whole point of a dim 5th interval
> is that we can't tell which note is the tonic. This translates theoretically
> in the fact that 1:sqrt2 = sqrt2:2 (i.e. quite literally 2/sqrt2 = sqrt2) so
> we can't tell which is the tonic. The same principle of course holds for the
> dim chord 1:2^(1/3),:2^(1/2),:2^(2/3),:2.
>

Well I think there can be many theories about how the dimished 7th chord is
contructed.
My personal choice is to see all harmony in just intonation intervals, and
in particular according to my theory of harmony.
The fact that the just intonation versions (there are many of them) are not
symetrical doe not make them incompatible with how they have been thought of
/ used in the past I think.

>
> Secondly, Beethoven did write in 12 edo tuning so that we can rightly
> assume that he chose this chord in this place for a reason. As you know,
> lowering each note of a dim chord by a semitone produces a dom 7 chord, each
> one min 3rds apart. Beethoven, like Bach, is renown for 'punning' on the
> fact that relative maj and min are minor 3rds apart so that for eg replacing
> G7 with G#dim leads to Amin instead of C maj. So I think that getting a good
> dim chord in a Beethoven tuning would be an important priority.
>

The best diminished 7th chords are 7-limit I think.
I was so hoping not to have to go that way because of the math involved but
I've been thinking some more about the optimal tuning without comma shifts
for "extended diatonic / chromatic" 12-tone music lately and 7-limit does
make sense and should give more consonant solution.

For great 7-limit dimished 7th chords try these 4:

7/6 4/3 2/1 9/8 45/32 27/16
1/1 + 8/7 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5
giving:
1/1 : 7/6 45/32 27/16 2/1
7/6 : 135/112 81/56 12/7 2/1
45/32: 6/5 64/45 224/135 2/1
27/16: 32/27 112/81 5/3 2/1

7/6 4/3 2/1 9/8 45/32 105/64
1/1 + 8/7 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 7/6
giving:
1/1 : 7/6 45/32 105/64 2/1
7/6 : 135/112 45/32 12/7 2/1
45/32 : 7/6 64/45 224/135 2/1
105/64: 128/105 64/45 12/7 2/1

32/27 4/3 2/1 8/7 10/7 12/7
1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 8/7 + 5/4 + 6/5
giving:
1/1 : 32/27 10/7 12/7 2/1
32/27: 135/112 81/56 27/16 2/1
10/7 : 6/5 7/5 224/135 2/1
12/7 : 7/6 112/81 5/3 2/1

32/27 4/3 2/1 8/7 10/7 5/3
1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 8/7 + 5/4 + 7/6
giving:
1/1 : 32/27 10/7 5/3 2/1
32/27: 135/112 45/32 27/16 2/1
10/7 : 7/6 7/5 224/135 2/1
5/3 : 6/5 64/45 12/7 2/1

With the risk of sounding like a shopping list, 'thirdly', my very first
> post on this list was asking you guys whether the min 3rd as 6/5 could not
> be substituted by 19/16, simply because the 5 in the denominator did not
> produce the tonic (and minor keys are just as common as major)i.e. in
> contrast 2/1, 3/2 and 5/4 all have 2^N in the denominator. I also noticed
> that this interval didn't produce good b5 or may 6 either. eg the b5 should
> be (6/5)^2 = 36/25, which isn't that good a flat fifth. And as I have also
> been saying lately that, due to the limits of hearing, the irrationals might
> be rational numbers after all, your interval 45/32 is much closer to sqrt2.
> Would it be outside of 5-limit to use 19/16 45/32 and 32/19 or something? Or
> even 19/16 (19/16)^2 = 1.41015625 and (19/16)^3 = 1.67456055, or are these
> numbers too large for 5-limit? Another possibility would be taking 45/32
> from 19/16 which would be 1.66992188 for the maj 6.
>

I was thinking like this a long time ago when I was looking at scales as
beeing constructed from harmonic segments.
like the major scale beeing 15:16:18:20 the on the 20 the sequence starts
again 15:16:18:20
When thinking like this the minor chord relative to the major chord would
indeed be 19/16
15:16:17:18:19:20 + 15:16:17:18:19:20
giving the scale (starting on 16) 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2
19/12 5/3 15/8 2/1
The empty space between 5/3 and 15/8 you could fill up by both going from 20
to 21 and down from 15 to 14 giving both thesame frequency of 7/4
so 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2 19/12 5/3 7/4 15/8 2/1
2 harmonic segments a fifth apart interconnecting.
This way of thinking does give me the nicest way of using the 7th harmonic
melodically. It always seems to sound right when walking down to the 7th
from 2/1 -> 15/8 -> 7/4
But the 19/16 in minor chords, I don't like the sound of it. And in actual
use it sounded pretty much like tempering to me with the extra disadvantage
of still requiring comma shifts (even more than normal 5 or 7-limit JI).
And in the end prefer my theory of harmony on how to contruct harmony, It
makes deeper sense to me.
But still looking at melody as segments of the harmonic series still makes
sense to me. I personally don't know how to look at it.My ear also fails me
a lot when experimenting with the harmonic series.And i though lower prime
limits would allow me to make things perfect and know that what i'm doing is
right because of pure harmonies.
But now with this drei equali piece i seem to prefer dissonant chords in
places where there could be a very consonant chord.
So maybe it's back to the drawing board.
Or maybe i can make it make perfect sense in 7 limit without comma shifts
and my theory prevails.
I guess what I'm sayiing is, I don't know. And there doesn't seem to be a
person in the world and never yet in the history of humanity existed a
person that does know :)

Marcel

🔗Charles Lucy <lucy@...>

4/9/2009 10:54:51 AM

Attempting to improve on the choices of integer ratios to produce harmonious music and "better" scales has been played with for decades, if not hundreds of years, with very limited success.

I suspect that you are flogging a dead horse; and you might be better employed exploring other ways to (mixed metaphors) skin a cat.

Best wishes;-)

On 9 Apr 2009, at 18:19, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>
>
>
> >Hi Rick,
>
> >Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what the convention of using + > between >intervals means in <1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5>.
>
> >It's not any ignorance on your part. The + thing is my way of > looking at how >harmony is constructed.
> >See my post a few threads back about the possible construction of > harmony and >melody.RECENT ACTIVITY
>

Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

🔗Michael Sheiman <djtrancendance@...>

4/9/2009 11:15:16 AM

--Attempting to improve on the choices of integer ratios to produce
--harmonious music and "better" scales has been played with for --decades,
if not hundreds of years, with very limited success. AGREED! Meaning, it appears we got about 96% of the way to ratio-based consonance hundreds of years ago and now more like 98% of the way with JI and Wilson's scales (which are not too far from JI themselves)?
Can you say "diminishing marginal returns"?! I figure that we really should move our efforts to something else meaning...something that shows more potential for improvement and opening possibilities NOT already discovered through tuning geniuses hundreds of years ago.

--I
suspect that you are flogging a dead horse; and you might be better
--employed exploring other ways to (mixed metaphors) skin a cat.
Again, agreed...though I wouldn't exactly say low number ratio-based tuning is a dead-horse just one with a lot of diseases that's hard to make healthier than it was at its prime even with the best doctors (LOL).

If rational-number-based tuning is 98% of the way to its capability, you "still" have another 2% (near-dead-horse) gain possible (and enough people here smart enough to manage to squeeze that measly extra 2% juice "off of the fruit of rational ratio-based tuning"). :-D

**********************
But (Charles) the point I think we both agree on is this...

Why work so hard for a very small gain on an art-form that's been near perfect for so long (rational numbered ratio-based tuning), why not instead move on to something with something more like 40% of untouched capacity like irrational-number-generate tunings.

-Michael

--- On Thu, 4/9/09, Charles Lucy <lucy@...> wrote:

From: Charles Lucy <lucy@harmonics.com>
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: New file uploaded to tuning = dead JI'ed horses and cats
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 10:54 AM

Attempting to improve on the choices of integer ratios to produce harmonious music and "better" scales has been played with for decades, if not hundreds of years, with very limited success.
I suspect that you are flogging a dead horse; and you might be better employed exploring other ways to (mixed metaphors) skin a cat.
Best wishes;-)

On 9 Apr 2009, at 18:19, Marcel de Velde wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what the convention of using + between >intervals means in <1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5>.

>It's not any ignorance on your part. The + thing is my way of looking at how >harmony is constructed.>See my post a few threads back about the possible construction of harmony and >melody.Recent Activity

Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/9/2009 6:07:22 PM

I no longer think this version is correct.Also think now my theory is not
relevant to music.

Going to go in a completely different direction.
Harmony simply comming from the harmonic series and melody comming from
segments of the harmonic series.
I've found some errors in my thinking that lead to me departing this path
about a year ago.

I'll delete the mp3 to save space on this list, but i'll leave the mp3's for
a while.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/9/2009 6:16:44 PM

>
> Attempting to improve on the choices of integer ratios to produce
> harmonious music and "better" scales has been played with for decades, if
> not hundreds of years, with very limited success.
>

Yes, this is exactly the reason it's worth exploring.
If the solution and exact workings of music had allready been found there
wouldn't be much point in inventing it again right? ;-)

And there are such an incredibe amount of possible solutions to the problems
of JI tuning.
No way they have all been explored both in depth and correctly.

> I suspect that you are flogging a dead horse; and you might be better
> employed exploring other ways to (mixed metaphors) skin a cat.
>
> Best wishes;-)
>

Today we have computers and Scala.
Big advantage over history.
Besides this I have unlimited time on my hands and enjoy philosophy and
playing with numbers.
Also not afraid to be self critical and start over again 1000 times if
needed.
I think I may have a fair chance at cracking this problem.

Time will tell :)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/9/2009 6:35:30 PM

>
> AGREED! Meaning, it appears we got about 96% of the way to ratio-based
> consonance hundreds of years ago and now more like 98% of the way with JI
> and Wilson's scales (which are not too far from JI themselves)?
>
> Can you say "diminishing marginal returns"?! I figure that we really
> should move our efforts to something else meaning...something that shows
> more potential for improvement and opening possibilities NOT already
> discovered through tuning geniuses hundreds of years ago.
>
> --I suspect that you are flogging a dead horse; and you might be better
> --employed exploring other ways to (mixed metaphors) skin a cat.
> Again, agreed...though I wouldn't exactly say low number ratio-based
> tuning is a dead-horse just one with a lot of diseases that's hard to make
> healthier than it was at its prime even with the best doctors (LOL).
>
> If rational-number-based tuning is 98% of the way to its capability, you
> "still" have another 2% (near-dead-horse) gain possible (and enough people
> here smart enough to manage to squeeze that measly extra 2% juice "off of
> the fruit of rational ratio-based tuning"). :-D
>
> **********************
> But (Charles) the point I think we both agree on is this...
>
> Why work so hard for a very small gain on an art-form that's been near
> perfect for so long (rational numbered ratio-based tuning), why not instead
> move on to something with something more like 40% of untouched capacity like
> irrational-number-generate tunings.
>

This is your way of looking at it.
The way I see it there is only 1 way music works and music is constructed.
As this way is as of yet unexplained / not understood there is nothing that
is "98%" there.
We are 0% there.
There is only failure and success.
Right now all fails, and we make music in 12tet which apparently aproximates
(atleast a subset) of how music really works.
So there is no diminishing return for success. When there is success there
will be 100% gain.
This is a beautifull and important enough promise to me to make me have a go
at it fully.
Should I fail I'll set up another internet company, I'm good at that and
have plenty of plans laying around, I'll be successfull in work one way or
another.
But untill I've given my true passion which is solving JI a full try, I
can't stop or I'll have a nagging feeling for the rest of my life that goes
something like "what if I'd... ".
So I'm in it for the big prize, not interested in marginal improvements in
temperaments or things like that.
Perhaps in half a year or so I'll be so lost that I become convinced that I
can't solve the JI problem.
That will be the time to direct my life elsewhere.
Won't be music, I'll only do that when it can be done in perfection and
better than anybody else before.
But right now I have several angles left that still have a fair chance of
100% success

Marcel

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/10/2009 8:04:55 AM

Twice now I (Rick) have posted the mathematical proof that

1. only whole-numbered ratios produce periodic wave functions and that the resultant frequency corresponds to the tonic. It was then shown that

2.this proof is transitive and applies to any number of waves whatsoever i.e. the resultant frequency can then be used with other such frequencies and the proof still holds. Then as a point of contrast,

3. I reproduced the ancient Pythagorean proof that sqrt2 is not a whole-numbered fraction, which takes on a new musical meaning in light of the aforementioned periodic proof i.e. the sqrt2 or flat-fifth interval is ipso facto non-periodic and non-tonal. Finally, I asked

4. where does this leave the tempered system which DOES appear to be tonal despite the proof. My hypothesis is that the 'irrational' numbers are not irrational at all, that instead of sqrt2 = 1.41421356...where the digits after the decimal point go onto infinity, the actual interval on the piano might be 45/32 = 1.40625 (close to one decimal place) or 181/128 = 1.4140625 (close to three places). In fact, if we take these intervals in cents, it is clear that the human ear cannot tell the difference. Therefore,

5. we seem to have arrived at a type of 'uncertainty principle' where there are many, possibly infinite number of ratios that can correspond to any given interval. Or in other words, there will always be a certain doubt as to the exact number of cycles per a given time. This shows that there is indeed probably an infinite number of ways to 'skin a cat'. And I can see absolutely no reason why the 'irrationals' Pi or Phi would be any exception.

However, pi is used for expressing wave functions such as "sin2pi*vt", and it is the number of cycles vt which indicates the interval, not the formalism of taking the angle pi in radians i.e. we don't take sin 2(pi^2)t. Perhaps there is some other law at play here, but we certainly don't yet know it. And as for Phi, this does not generate a tuning 'system' but is merely one interval applied many times.

-Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
> for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/10/2009 8:12:53 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> Excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure what the convention of using + between
> > intervals means in <1/1 + 10/9 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5>.
> >
>
> It's not any ignorance on your part. The + thing is my way of looking at how
> harmony is constructed.
> See my post a few threads back about the possible construction of harmony
> and melody.
>
>
> > But as for the diminished chords, <1/1:6/5 45/32 27/16> and so on, forgive
> > me for thinking out aloud but I do feel that you might be mixing up worlds.
> > As I said, your tonal chords sound very good in whole numbers, but
> > symmetrical chords are an entirely different matter. Firstly, both in theory
> > and in practice, it seems to me that the whole point of a dim 5th interval
> > is that we can't tell which note is the tonic. This translates theoretically
> > in the fact that 1:sqrt2 = sqrt2:2 (i.e. quite literally 2/sqrt2 = sqrt2) so
> > we can't tell which is the tonic. The same principle of course holds for the
> > dim chord 1:2^(1/3),:2^(1/2),:2^(2/3),:2.
> >
>
> Well I think there can be many theories about how the dimished 7th chord is
> contructed.
> My personal choice is to see all harmony in just intonation intervals, and
> in particular according to my theory of harmony.
> The fact that the just intonation versions (there are many of them) are not
> symetrical doe not make them incompatible with how they have been thought of
> / used in the past I think.
>
>
> >
> > Secondly, Beethoven did write in 12 edo tuning so that we can rightly
> > assume that he chose this chord in this place for a reason. As you know,
> > lowering each note of a dim chord by a semitone produces a dom 7 chord, each
> > one min 3rds apart. Beethoven, like Bach, is renown for 'punning' on the
> > fact that relative maj and min are minor 3rds apart so that for eg replacing
> > G7 with G#dim leads to Amin instead of C maj. So I think that getting a good
> > dim chord in a Beethoven tuning would be an important priority.
> >
>
> The best diminished 7th chords are 7-limit I think.
> I was so hoping not to have to go that way because of the math involved but
> I've been thinking some more about the optimal tuning without comma shifts
> for "extended diatonic / chromatic" 12-tone music lately and 7-limit does
> make sense and should give more consonant solution.
>
> For great 7-limit dimished 7th chords try these 4:
>
> 7/6 4/3 2/1 9/8 45/32 27/16
> 1/1 + 8/7 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 6/5
> giving:
> 1/1 : 7/6 45/32 27/16 2/1
> 7/6 : 135/112 81/56 12/7 2/1
> 45/32: 6/5 64/45 224/135 2/1
> 27/16: 32/27 112/81 5/3 2/1
>
>
> 7/6 4/3 2/1 9/8 45/32 105/64
> 1/1 + 8/7 + 3/2 + 9/8 + 5/4 + 7/6
> giving:
> 1/1 : 7/6 45/32 105/64 2/1
> 7/6 : 135/112 45/32 12/7 2/1
> 45/32 : 7/6 64/45 224/135 2/1
> 105/64: 128/105 64/45 12/7 2/1
>
>
> 32/27 4/3 2/1 8/7 10/7 12/7
> 1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 8/7 + 5/4 + 6/5
> giving:
> 1/1 : 32/27 10/7 12/7 2/1
> 32/27: 135/112 81/56 27/16 2/1
> 10/7 : 6/5 7/5 224/135 2/1
> 12/7 : 7/6 112/81 5/3 2/1
>
>
> 32/27 4/3 2/1 8/7 10/7 5/3
> 1/1 + 9/8 + 3/2 + 8/7 + 5/4 + 7/6
> giving:
> 1/1 : 32/27 10/7 5/3 2/1
> 32/27: 135/112 45/32 27/16 2/1
> 10/7 : 7/6 7/5 224/135 2/1
> 5/3 : 6/5 64/45 12/7 2/1
>
>
> With the risk of sounding like a shopping list, 'thirdly', my very first
> > post on this list was asking you guys whether the min 3rd as 6/5 could not
> > be substituted by 19/16, simply because the 5 in the denominator did not
> > produce the tonic (and minor keys are just as common as major)i.e. in
> > contrast 2/1, 3/2 and 5/4 all have 2^N in the denominator. I also noticed
> > that this interval didn't produce good b5 or may 6 either. eg the b5 should
> > be (6/5)^2 = 36/25, which isn't that good a flat fifth. And as I have also
> > been saying lately that, due to the limits of hearing, the irrationals might
> > be rational numbers after all, your interval 45/32 is much closer to sqrt2.
> > Would it be outside of 5-limit to use 19/16 45/32 and 32/19 or something? Or
> > even 19/16 (19/16)^2 = 1.41015625 and (19/16)^3 = 1.67456055, or are these
> > numbers too large for 5-limit? Another possibility would be taking 45/32
> > from 19/16 which would be 1.66992188 for the maj 6.
> >
>
> I was thinking like this a long time ago when I was looking at scales as
> beeing constructed from harmonic segments.
> like the major scale beeing 15:16:18:20 the on the 20 the sequence starts
> again 15:16:18:20
> When thinking like this the minor chord relative to the major chord would
> indeed be 19/16
> 15:16:17:18:19:20 + 15:16:17:18:19:20
> giving the scale (starting on 16) 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2
> 19/12 5/3 15/8 2/1
> The empty space between 5/3 and 15/8 you could fill up by both going from 20
> to 21 and down from 15 to 14 giving both thesame frequency of 7/4
> so 1/1 17/16 9/8 19/16 5/4 4/3 17/12 3/2 19/12 5/3 7/4 15/8 2/1
> 2 harmonic segments a fifth apart interconnecting.
> This way of thinking does give me the nicest way of using the 7th harmonic
> melodically. It always seems to sound right when walking down to the 7th
> from 2/1 -> 15/8 -> 7/4
> But the 19/16 in minor chords, I don't like the sound of it. And in actual
> use it sounded pretty much like tempering to me with the extra disadvantage
> of still requiring comma shifts (even more than normal 5 or 7-limit JI).
> And in the end prefer my theory of harmony on how to contruct harmony, It
> makes deeper sense to me.
> But still looking at melody as segments of the harmonic series still makes
> sense to me. I personally don't know how to look at it.My ear also fails me
> a lot when experimenting with the harmonic series.And i though lower prime
> limits would allow me to make things perfect and know that what i'm doing is
> right because of pure harmonies.
> But now with this drei equali piece i seem to prefer dissonant chords in
> places where there could be a very consonant chord.
> So maybe it's back to the drawing board.
> Or maybe i can make it make perfect sense in 7 limit without comma shifts
> and my theory prevails.
> I guess what I'm sayiing is, I don't know. And there doesn't seem to be a
> person in the world and never yet in the history of humanity existed a
> person that does know :)
>
> Marcel
>
Hi Marcel,

Yes who knows exactly? As I say in my defence against you-know-who (see above or below), I am slowly coming to the conclusion that in the real world whole chunks of the harmonic series can be assigned to a single interval, even during the same note eg a singer inoffensively going slightly off pitch while holding the 'same' note. I don't understand 7/6 in the dim chord. It doesn't seem close to the minor 3rd at all.

-Rick

🔗djtrancendance@...

4/10/2009 8:36:05 AM

--1. only whole-numbered ratios produce periodic wave functions and --that
the resultant frequency corresponds to the tonic. It was then --shown
that -Rick
"corresponds to the tonic"...correct me if I am wrong but is not that in relation to the overtones of the harmonic series pointing to the root tone thus indirectly implying the harmonic series is the only valid timbre? If so, surely there's a conflict between that idea and Sethares' theories (which also use timbres other than the harmonic series).

TRUE, other timbers are not "TONAL" if you insist on the anal definition of tonal meaning "of whole numbered multiples from the root IE 100hz 200hz 300hz 400hz etc.)... If you are saying "nothing is tonal but the harmonic series" then, duh, because the harmonic series is the definition of tonal (tonal = related to the root tone of the harmonic series by whole numbered ratios). So x = x....I already knew that.

However, my point is being TONAL (in that very strict sense) is NOT the only way to
be consonant. Even Sethares' non-harmonic-series timbre experiments appear to hint strongly at that.
**********************************************************************

--"My hypothesis is that the 'irrational' numbers are not irrational at
all, --that instead of sqrt2 = 1.41421356.. .where the digits after the
decimal --point go onto infinity, the actual interval on the piano might
be 45/32 = --1.40625 (close to one decimal place) or 181/128 = 1.4140625
(close --to three places)." -Rick

But...another factor is that 12TET is very very near whole-numbered ratio, regardless of the numbers (just as you indirectly stated). Thus, somewhat obviously,12TET is NOT an irrational tuning at all, just yet another way to very closely temper a rational tuning. Heck, same goes for 19TET and popular equal temperaments: that's why 19TET works so well with diatonic scales using harmonic series timbres while "similarly designed" tunings like 10TET don't

So, in short, I'll agree with that 12TET does NOT confirm that irrational tunings work, mostly b/c it is too close to a rational tuning to be called irrational.
***************************************************************
--"And as for Phi, this does not generate a tuning 'system' but is merely --one interval applied many times." -Rick
Ok then, so what DOES describe a tuning system, in your opinion? 12TET is basically the 12th root of 2
continuously multiplied by itself just like the PHI tuning is based on PHI continuosly multiplied by itself.

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree...but the main gist of my argument is that "TONAL" IE "related to whole number multiples of a root tone" is not the only way to consonance and that other phenomena is psychoacoustics, such as different tone symmetry and optimization to make root tones strike as few hairs on the basilar membrane as possible for an slight-to-fair increase in clarity, and critical-band-roughness optimization (ALA Sethares' alternative timbre/scale work) are new avenues of exploration toward consonance we really need to ALSO pay attention to.

-Michael

--- On Fri, 4/10/09, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:

From: rick_ballan
<rick_ballan@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: [tuning] Re: New file uploaded to tuning = dead JI'ed horses and
cats
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 8:04 AM

Twice now I (Rick) have posted the mathematical proof that

1. only whole-numbered ratios produce periodic wave functions and that the resultant frequency corresponds to the tonic. It was then shown that

4. where does this leave the tempered system which DOES appear to be tonal despite the proof. My hypothesis is that the 'irrational' numbers are not irrational at all, that instead of sqrt2 = 1.41421356.. .where the digits after the decimal point go onto infinity, the actual interval on the piano might be 45/32 = 1.40625 (close to one decimal place) or 181/128 = 1.4140625 (close to three places). In fact, if we take these intervals in cents, it is clear that the human ear cannot tell the difference. Therefore,

-Rick

> Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com

> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

> for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com

> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

4/10/2009 10:00:06 AM

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

> 4. where does this leave the tempered system which DOES appear
> to be tonal despite the proof. My hypothesis is that the
> 'irrational' numbers are not irrational at all, that instead
> of sqrt2 = 1.41421356...where the digits after the decimal point
> go onto infinity, the actual interval on the piano might
> be ... 181/128 = 1.4140625 (close to three places).

The pitch mechanism isn't accurate enough to tell the difference.
Moreover, in music we often aren't exposed to a signal long
enough for the difference to even appear (an exercise for the
reader: how many seconds of signal are required to differentiate
sqrt(2) from 181/128 given the classical uncertainty principle?).
The answer is that the hearing system goes out of its way to
interpret things in terms of the harmonic series, even when the
signal is quite far from it.

-Carl

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/10/2009 10:15:55 AM

Your hypothesis here is that time itself is periodic?

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Twice now I (Rick) have posted the mathematical proof that
>
> 1. only whole-numbered ratios produce periodic wave functions and that the
> resultant frequency corresponds to the tonic. It was then shown that
>
> 2.this proof is transitive and applies to any number of waves whatsoever
> i.e. the resultant frequency can then be used with other such frequencies
> and the proof still holds. Then as a point of contrast,
>
> 3. I reproduced the ancient Pythagorean proof that sqrt2 is not a
> whole-numbered fraction, which takes on a new musical meaning in light of
> the aforementioned periodic proof i.e. the sqrt2 or flat-fifth interval is
> ipso facto non-periodic and non-tonal. Finally, I asked
>
> 4. where does this leave the tempered system which DOES appear to be tonal
> despite the proof. My hypothesis is that the 'irrational' numbers are not
> irrational at all, that instead of sqrt2 = 1.41421356...where the digits
> after the decimal point go onto infinity, the actual interval on the piano
> might be 45/32 = 1.40625 (close to one decimal place) or 181/128 = 1.4140625
> (close to three places). In fact, if we take these intervals in cents, it is
> clear that the human ear cannot tell the difference. Therefore,
>
> 5. we seem to have arrived at a type of 'uncertainty principle' where there
> are many, possibly infinite number of ratios that can correspond to any
> given interval. Or in other words, there will always be a certain doubt as
> to the exact number of cycles per a given time. This shows that there is
> indeed probably an infinite number of ways to 'skin a cat'. And I can see
> absolutely no reason why the 'irrationals' Pi or Phi would be any exception.
>
> However, pi is used for expressing wave functions such as "sin2pi*vt", and
> it is the number of cycles vt which indicates the interval, not the
> formalism of taking the angle pi in radians i.e. we don't take sin 2(pi^2)t.
> Perhaps there is some other law at play here, but we certainly don't yet
> know it. And as for Phi, this does not generate a tuning 'system' but is
> merely one interval applied many times.
>
> -Rick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Charles Lucylucy@lucytune. com
>
>> - Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -
>> for information on LucyTuning go to:http://www.lucytune .com
>> For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:http://www.lullabie s.co.uk
>>
>
>

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/10/2009 8:18:21 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Your hypothesis here is that time itself is periodic?
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 11:04 AM, rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...> wrote:
> >
> >
Hi Mike, where have you been? Thought you joined the circus.

Well that hypothesis is not here exactly in this post but it is no doubt related. And it would be more precise to say that what mathematicians call the "linear and homogeneous" aspects of the space and time lines have all the appearance of periodicity i.e. we don't have to assume it a priory because it is supplied to us by observable light, matter and sound waves (which pretty much covers all of the senses), while this can also be proved mathematically. It begins as a self-evident first principle that philosophers of science have systematically overlooked. But like all first principles its significance only becomes clear in view of its consequences.

Starting with a simple sine wave sin2pi(vt - x/y) where v is freq and y wavelength, the values in the brackets represent number of cycles which I will call n. Therefore, from n = vt, since v = 1/T we obtain t = nT. For length, x = ny. In other words, the t and x are dependent variables defined in proportion to period and wavelength, the factor of proportionality being the number of cycles. Note here that this is not just one sine wave but the algebraic representation of all such waves and therefore is completely general.

If we now add (say) two sine waves which share a GCD, say frequencies v/f = a/b where a and b are whole, it is found that the resultant period, call it R, gives R = a/v = b/f. As per usual, the factors of proportionality give v and f as the 'a'th' and 'b'th' harmonics of fundamental freq 1/R. However, observe that these have the same form as t = nT above i.e. that a and b are also numbers of cycles per a given time R. Also remember that this same proof of GCD is transitive and applies to any number of wave additions (as in 2. below). And the situation becomes even more interesting when we apply this same line of thought to standing waves. I can't write it here but without any design of my own we arrive at the conclusion that linear and homogeneous space and time are equal to the CLASS of spherical standing waves.

Finally, using this proportionality it is very easy to prove that all periods can form a modulus on the time line. For eg, given a freq of 2HZ and period 1/2 seconds, t = 3/4 sec is equivalent to t = 1/4 second mod(1/2).

The upshot I suppose is that scientists represent time by numbers and imagine that it represents "time-as-history". However, they are invoking a number system of harmonia which dates right back to Pythagoras and the original mapping of rational string lengths onto the domain of 'time' or frequency, hence the time LINE. Ironically, in view of the discovery that light and even matter itself propagates as a wave, at least this part of the ancient theory seems more objective than Newtonian-Einsteinian mechanics.

Happy Easter

Rick

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/12/2009 7:47:32 AM

Hi Rick,
Without getting into specifics, it seems to me as if you're trying to make
sense of the enthropy model as an exact model that explains how music works.
I don't think the enthropy model is such a model.
It only tells of consonance TO THE HUMAN EAR for 2 simultanious tones.
I don't think the human ear is perfect and I don't think that all that music
is, is so because of how the ear translates sound.
Enthropy does not for instance model all the ways the brain interprets the
data the ear converted from sound.
To build a theory of music purely on enthropy is the wrong way imho.

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

4/12/2009 10:05:22 AM

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

> A few questions if you guys don't mind. Correct me if I'm wrong
> but the Fourier Transform is usually used in acoustics to model
> non-periodic sounds like hand-claps etc. It can also be used to
> model periodic waves with a finite though indeterminate number
> of cycles per a given approximate time (short-time FT. I have
> certain problems with this model since it assumes accurate sine
> waves with definite cycles per time to begin with, but that
> discussion is for another time). And in the quantum application
> there is a pay-off between the frequency band-width and the
> length of time their product always being > h/2. So I'm having
> a little trouble understanding how the FT mathematics is applied
> to entropy.

It's not. The classical uncertainty principle places limits on
the simultaneous frequency and time resolution of the ear (or
any other measuring device) but has little if anything to do
with entropy.

The quantum uncertainty principle is related to, but distinct
from, the classical uncertainty principle. The latter gives
a lower bound on the the product of the variance of the fourier
transform and the variance of the original function. See
for instance:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/Uncertainty_Principle.html

> From what I can gather, the aim is to determine ...

Which aim? Sorry, I've lost track.

> would I be right in saying that instead of pitting time against
> frequency, time being the domain (on the horizontal axis) and
> freq the range (on the vertical),

Not really, no. Harmonic entropy assigns to every _interval_
(or triad, tetrad, etc.) an entropy. Have you read the
Sounds of India article?

> The problem that has been lurking at the back of my mind, but
> which I have only now identified, is that this idea of continuity
> doesn't seem to distinguish between rational and irrationals,
> and ipso facto between periodic and aperiodic waves.

Right, harmonic entropy can assign a 'dissonance' to any
interval, just just rational ones. Roughness-based models
like Sethares' can as well.

>For example, 5/4 has a low entropy. Some rational intervals that
>are close to it are 81/64, 161/128, 645/512 so I can assume (??)
>that these too are on the bell curve near 5/4 and therefore have
>slightly more entropy.

Right.

>Though they have a very long period of return relative to the
>original intervals, they are still periodic and this 'long'
>period is naught compared to infinity.

The length of their periods is already beyond the capability
of human hearing to determine, and depending on the duration
of a musical interval, may be indistinguishable from other
ratios even in theory.

-Carl

🔗djtrancendance@...

4/12/2009 3:19:26 PM

>"For example, 5/4 has a low entropy. Some rational intervals that

>are close to it are 81/64, 161/128, 645/512 so I can assume (??)

>that these too are on the bell curve near 5/4 and therefore have

>slightly more entropy." -Rick

--Right. -Carl

Looking over this all the main concern I have about such a model is that it is "dyadic".
In the sense that, sure, 3/2 has the purest sound (it's the lowest valley in Sethares' curve as well)...but the model doesn't seem to say much about how much more sour you are making OTHER intervals in order to make that 3/2 sound pure in the sense of making scales. Remember, we are ultimately making scales (7+ notes per octave), not just dyads (2 notes, often per less than an octave).

> The problem that has been lurking at the back of my mind, but

> which I have only now identified, is that this idea of continuity

> doesn't seem to distinguish between rational and irrationals,

> and ipso facto between periodic and aperiodic waves.

Look at the curve here:
http://eceserv0.ece.wisc.edu/~sethares/images/image1.gif

    Hence...it seems to indirectly open the possibility of making certain intervals, like the 5th, less pure and making the most dissonant intervals, such as the minor 3rd, major 3rd, and minor 6th, more dissonant and making more chords feels "close enough" to the level of consonance the 5th and octave have to be recognized by the human mind as consonant.
Also note...if you move where the 5th is on the curve....you DON'T just end up making the 5th more sour, you also end up making others, like the major 3rd, more consonant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
    For the longest time we have been perfecting a system that finds the best AVERAGE consonance by using rational numbers...and, agreed: that system IS JI and that
system IS based on rational numbers.
***************************
   However, instead, as a second option...why not also try to find a system that yields the most intervals (not just dyads but combinations of 3,4,5...intervals that qualify as "not perfect consonance...but close enough to be classified with the human mind as such")?
The fact the 5th and octave in Sethares curve seem leaps and bounds more consonant then other intervals begs the question "why not try and build a curve where the valleys are leveled out instead of having some valleys so much deeper than others?"
   One of the possible answers to finding that mysterious "in between ground" is, of course, irrational numbers.

-Michael

--- On Sun, 4/12/09, Carl Lumma <carl@lumma.org> wrote:

From: Carl Lumma
<carl@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: New file uploaded to tuning = dead JI'ed horses and cats
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 10:05 AM

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

> A few questions if you guys don't mind. Correct me if I'm wrong

> but the Fourier Transform is usually used in acoustics to model

> non-periodic sounds like hand-claps etc. It can also be used to

> model periodic waves with a finite though indeterminate number

> of cycles per a given approximate time (short-time FT. I have

> certain problems with this model since it assumes accurate sine

> waves with definite cycles per time to begin with, but that

> discussion is for another time). And in the quantum application

> there is a pay-off between the frequency band-width and the

> length of time their product always being > h/2. So I'm having

> a little trouble understanding how the FT mathematics is applied

> to entropy.

It's not. The classical uncertainty principle places limits on

the simultaneous frequency and time resolution of the ear (or

any other measuring device) but has little if anything to do

with entropy.

The quantum uncertainty principle is related to, but distinct

from, the classical uncertainty principle. The latter gives

a lower bound on the the product of the variance of the fourier

transform and the variance of the original function. See

for instance:

http://ccrma. stanford. edu/~jos/ mdft/Uncertainty _Principle. html

> From what I can gather, the aim is to determine ...

Which aim? Sorry, I've lost track.

> would I be right in saying that instead of pitting time against

> frequency, time being the domain (on the horizontal axis) and

> freq the range (on the vertical),

Not really, no. Harmonic entropy assigns to every _interval_

(or triad, tetrad, etc.) an entropy. Have you read the

Sounds of India article?

> The problem that has been lurking at the back of my mind, but

> which I have only now identified, is that this idea of continuity

> doesn't seem to distinguish between rational and irrationals,

> and ipso facto between periodic and aperiodic waves.

Right, harmonic entropy can assign a 'dissonance' to any

interval, just just rational ones. Roughness-based models

like Sethares' can as well.

>For example, 5/4 has a low entropy. Some rational intervals that

>are close to it are 81/64, 161/128, 645/512 so I can assume (??)

>that these too are on the bell curve near 5/4 and therefore have

>slightly more entropy.

Right.

>Though they have a very long period of return relative to the

>original intervals, they are still periodic and this 'long'

>period is naught compared to infinity.

The length of their periods is already beyond the capability

of human hearing to determine, and depending on the duration

of a musical interval, may be indistinguishable from other

ratios even in theory.

-Carl

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

4/12/2009 5:27:16 PM

rick_ballan wrote:

> A few questions if you guys don't mind. Correct me if I'm
> wrong but the Fourier Transform is usually used in
> acoustics to model non-periodic sounds like hand-claps
> etc. It can also be used to model periodic waves with a
> finite though indeterminate number of cycles per a given
> approximate time (short-time FT. I have certain problems
> with this model since it assumes accurate sine waves with
> definite cycles per time to begin with, but that
> discussion is for another time). And in the quantum
> application there is a pay-off between the frequency
> band-width and the length of time their product always
> being > h/2. So I'm having a little trouble understanding
> how the FT mathematics is applied to entropy. From what I
> can gather, the aim is to determine to what degree ratios
> have a reduced entropy (something like 'dissonance' in
> the older terminology)?? If so, would I be right in
> saying that instead of pitting time against frequency,
> time being the domain (on the horizontal axis) and freq
> the range (on the vertical), the entropy model pits
> frequency against entropy, freq now being the domain? I
> realise its stupid but when you are used to something...

Fourier transforms are used to analyze sounds.

What do you mean "frequency band-width"? The quantum application follows from wave-particle duality, so quantum particles follow the classical uncertainty principle when they're being waves.

I was talking about Shannon entropy, not harmonic entropy. The entropy of a signal is the maximum amount of information it might contain -- or the amount of randomness. If you're listening to FM radio that entropy is determined by the bandwidth and how long you listen. I don't know much beyond that because I haven't studied information theory.

The idea of harmonic entropy is, I think, that dissonant intervals carry more information than consonant ones. It's to do with how many different ratios you could assign to any given interval. The "entropy" part comes directly from the formula for Shannon entropy.

> My second question is more problematic and concerns the
> fact that the frequencies surrounding each rational
> interval are continuous. The problem that has been
> lurking at the back of my mind, but which I have only now
> identified, is that this idea of continuity doesn't seem
> to distinguish between rational and irrationals, and ipso
> facto between periodic and aperiodic waves. Entropy is a
> measure of chaos. But if they really do exist, nothing
> would be more chaotic than an irrational wave which never
> repeats itself all the way to infinity (and according to
> Cantor there are an uncountably infinite number of them).
> Perhaps this IS a mathematical nicety which doesn't
> translate into the real world but if it is I'd like to
> know it. And ironically, I was feeling that if I/we can
> find an uncertainty principle, then we might have found a
> loop-hole around these 'irrational' waves (mathematicians
> are wrong: they are irrational in every sense of the
> word). For example, 5/4 has a low entropy. Some rational
> intervals that are close to it are 81/64, 161/128,
> 645/512 so I can assume (??) that these too are on the
> bell curve near 5/4 and therefore have slightly more
> entropy. Though they have a very long period of return
> relative to the original intervals, they are still
> periodic and this 'long' period is naught compared to
> infinity. Yet the tempered fifth 2^(7/12) is also close
> and would have for all intents and purposes the same
> entropy. And so I am back to the same problem I began
> with; are the tempered intervals really irrational or
> rationals approx to only a few decimal places?

How do you get a continuity of rationals? Your idea seems to assume irrationals.

What has chaos got to do with it?

Two sine waves playing together, an irrational interval apart, would carry very little information. It doesn't matter that the signal doesn't repeat. You can do a Fourier transform and show tht it's always the same two frequencies. It certainly isn't chaotic because you can predict what it'll look like at any point in time.

Tempered intervals are, by definition, approximations to some other intervals.

Graham

🔗rick_ballan <rick_ballan@...>

4/12/2009 9:57:40 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> rick_ballan wrote:
>
> > A few questions if you guys don't mind. Correct me if I'm
> > wrong but the Fourier Transform is usually used in
> > acoustics to model non-periodic sounds like hand-claps
> > etc. It can also be used to model periodic waves with a
> > finite though indeterminate number of cycles per a given
> > approximate time (short-time FT. I have certain problems
> > with this model since it assumes accurate sine waves with
> > definite cycles per time to begin with, but that
> > discussion is for another time). And in the quantum
> > application there is a pay-off between the frequency
> > band-width and the length of time their product always
> > being > h/2. So I'm having a little trouble understanding
> > how the FT mathematics is applied to entropy. From what I
> > can gather, the aim is to determine to what degree ratios
> > have a reduced entropy (something like 'dissonance' in
> > the older terminology)?? If so, would I be right in
> > saying that instead of pitting time against frequency,
> > time being the domain (on the horizontal axis) and freq
> > the range (on the vertical), the entropy model pits
> > frequency against entropy, freq now being the domain? I
> > realise its stupid but when you are used to something...
>
> Fourier transforms are used to analyze sounds.
>
> What do you mean "frequency band-width"? The quantum
> application follows from wave-particle duality, so quantum
> particles follow the classical uncertainty principle when
> they're being waves.

Well the so-called 'particle' aspect is also defined by a wave-packet and is still a wave. In this case there are an infinite and continuous number of frequencies within a given finite range producing an amplitude 'hump' while the amplitudes outside that hump are negligible. Since the approx width of that hump in time is also finite then the probability of locating that 'particle' within this time is very high.
>
> I was talking about Shannon entropy, not harmonic entropy.
> The entropy of a signal is the maximum amount of information
> it might contain -- or the amount of randomness. If you're
> listening to FM radio that entropy is determined by the
> bandwidth and how long you listen. I don't know much beyond
> that because I haven't studied information theory.
>
> The idea of harmonic entropy is, I think, that dissonant
> intervals carry more information than consonant ones. It's
> to do with how many different ratios you could assign to any
> given interval. The "entropy" part comes directly from the
> formula for Shannon entropy.

Ah that makes things clearer, thanks. I'll look into it.
>
> > My second question is more problematic and concerns the
> > fact that the frequencies surrounding each rational
> > interval are continuous. The problem that has been
> > lurking at the back of my mind, but which I have only now
> > identified, is that this idea of continuity doesn't seem
> > to distinguish between rational and irrationals, and ipso
> > facto between periodic and aperiodic waves. Entropy is a
> > measure of chaos. But if they really do exist, nothing
> > would be more chaotic than an irrational wave which never
> > repeats itself all the way to infinity (and according to
> > Cantor there are an uncountably infinite number of them).
> > Perhaps this IS a mathematical nicety which doesn't
> > translate into the real world but if it is I'd like to
> > know it. And ironically, I was feeling that if I/we can
> > find an uncertainty principle, then we might have found a
> > loop-hole around these 'irrational' waves (mathematicians
> > are wrong: they are irrational in every sense of the
> > word). For example, 5/4 has a low entropy. Some rational
> > intervals that are close to it are 81/64, 161/128,
> > 645/512 so I can assume (??) that these too are on the
> > bell curve near 5/4 and therefore have slightly more
> > entropy. Though they have a very long period of return
> > relative to the original intervals, they are still
> > periodic and this 'long' period is naught compared to
> > infinity. Yet the tempered fifth 2^(7/12) is also close
> > and would have for all intents and purposes the same
> > entropy. And so I am back to the same problem I began
> > with; are the tempered intervals really irrational or
> > rationals approx to only a few decimal places?
>
> How do you get a continuity of rationals? Your idea seems
> to assume irrationals.

No I never said continuity of rationals. I said that it was continuous which means of course that it contains all the real numbers, both rationals and (mostly) irrationals. Just to be clear, the harmonic entropy model gives sharp drops in entropy around each rational number but it is surrounded by continuous irrationals.
>
> What has chaos got to do with it?

Well Carl used this word in one of his posts. I suppose its just a synonym for randomness.
>
> Two sine waves playing together, an irrational interval
> apart, would carry very little information. It doesn't
> matter that the signal doesn't repeat. You can do a Fourier
> transform and show that it's always the same two frequencies.
> It certainly isn't chaotic because you can predict what
> it'll look like at any point in time.

Thanks Graham, I can now state my case a little clearer. Yes two sine waves an irrational interval apart would still be easily Fourier analysable and predictable, no less so than two rational waves. As you say both would carry very little information. However, the first problem I have with this interpretation is that in music at least waves don't 'carry' (other) information but 'are' the information. (I suppose a bit like McLuhan's "The medium is the message"). For eg, the perfect fifth 3/2 is a periodic wave and tonal while the flat-fifth sqrt2 is aperiodic and atonal. Hence my concerns about a model which gives continuity around each rational, effectively brushing over this distinction. Second, ALL waves are Fourier analysable irrespective of the 'amount of information', so this doesn't seem to be an argument either way. Since waves ARE the information and are not employed into the service of some other theory (both light and matter are composed of waves, and even chemistry is subject to wave theory), then I propose (as a hypothesis) that much of what we have previously defined as chaos, randomness etc...is nothing more than these irrational waves. For example, the situation becomes infinitely more complex when we begin to define frequency as the GCD and then add these in two or more irrational intervals. What if we take two irrational intervals, say sqrt2 and pi, then three, and so on? Each one of these will not repeat all the way to infinity, and each one different to the next! And what's worse, there are an uncountably infinite number of them. This number is so vast that according to Cantor, if we were to throw a dart on a number line, the chances of hitting a rational is so small as to be zero. So if we were to take a small sample of one of these waves, it would certainly appear 'chaotic' or random. This is just an idea and I'd be interested to know what you think.

-Rick
>
> Tempered intervals are, by definition, approximations to
> some other intervals.
>
>
> Graham
>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

4/16/2009 3:32:47 AM

rick_ballan wrote:

[Most of this message is one paragraph, so I'll split it.]
> Thanks Graham, I can now state my case a little clearer.
> Yes two sine waves an irrational interval apart would
> still be easily Fourier analysable and predictable, no
> less so than two rational waves. As you say both would
> carry very little information.

Being predictable means it isn't chaotic. Carrying little information means it has low entropy. Those are the terms we were talking about.

> However, the first problem
> I have with this interpretation is that in music at least
> waves don't 'carry' (other) information but 'are' the
> information. (I suppose a bit like McLuhan's "The medium
> is the message").

I don't think entropy's a problem there. It's a property of the signal, not the channel. And it doesn't distinguish a meaningful message from a random one.

> For eg, the perfect fifth 3/2 is a
> periodic wave and tonal while the flat-fifth sqrt2 is
> aperiodic and atonal. Hence my concerns about a model
> which gives continuity around each rational, effectively
> brushing over this distinction.

Somehow harmonic entropy does distinguish these. I don't know what the information-theoretic model is for that. But it must come from an unequal probability for different intervals occurring. Maybe assuming all rationals up to a given limit are equally likely.

That's never made a great deal of sense to me, I have to say. But I can see that applying information to harmony can be useful. You'd have to talk about probabilities in the light of listeners' expectations. It's all about how predictable a signal is. If you can always predict the next note/chord the entropy's going to be low. And the music will be boring. If you can never predict what's going to happen next, it's going to sound random, and that's not good either. You can see a lot of conventional harmony as rules to avoid these two extremes.

> Second, ALL waves are
> Fourier analysable irrespective of the 'amount of
> information', so this doesn't seem to be an argument
> either way. Since waves ARE the information and are not
> employed into the service of some other theory (both
> light and matter are composed of waves, and even
> chemistry is subject to wave theory), then I propose (as
> a hypothesis) that much of what we have previously
> defined as chaos, randomness etc...is nothing more than
> these irrational waves.

Irrationality isn't chaos. There are very simple mathematical models for chaos. One of the criteria is that the result shouldn't be periodic. But another is that the evolution should be sensitive to initial conditions. That is, a small difference in the parameters explodes so that the state at a future time is completely unpredictable unless you have infinite memory.

That doesn't apply to a signal made up of two sine waves at irrational intervals (which isn't itself a wave). It isn't even truly aperiodic. I think it'd be described as "quasi-periodic". It almost repeats at various periods, corresponding to rational approximations to the interval.

> For example, the situation
> becomes infinitely more complex when we begin to define
> frequency as the GCD and then add these in two or more
> irrational intervals. What if we take two irrational
> intervals, say sqrt2 and pi, then three, and so on? Each
> one of these will not repeat all the way to infinity, and
> each one different to the next! And what's worse, there
> are an uncountably infinite number of them. This number
> is so vast that according to Cantor, if we were to throw
> a dart on a number line, the chances of hitting a
> rational is so small as to be zero. So if we were to take
> a small sample of one of these waves, it would certainly
> appear 'chaotic' or random. This is just an idea and I'd
> be interested to know what you think.

You're certainly going to have problems defining the GCD of irrational numbers. You could say this is what the ear (or ear/brain system) does when it looks for the virtual pitch. And you could solve the problem by substituting rational approximations. The evidence suggests that what the ear does isn't this simple, and the threshold for recognizable rationality is very low, so theoretical irrational-ness doesn't enter in to it.

Yes, uncountability can be scary. But there are different ways of looking at infinities. You can also say that there are an infinite number of rational numbers between any pair of irrational numbers (and vice-versa). So in that sense you can't say there are more of one than the other. You can do any calculation to tolerable precision using rationals (and "real" numbers as stored in computers are normally rational approximations). I practical terms you can go a long way by ignoring irrationals.

A small sample of a signal of two sine waves would look very simple. If you could sample it with infinite precision you could deduce its nature. If you quantize it, it will look *identical* to a pair of sine waves at a rational interval, and therefore periodic given the GCD.

If you've worked with discrete Fourier transforms, you'll have noticed that all intervals between the partials they show are rational. That's because it's really a Fourier series that assumes you have one period of a waveform. It's that uncertainty principle biting you again.

Graham

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/2/2009 6:27:15 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /C Major-Chord wave peaks-E.Temp.- Piagui I.doc
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : Chord diagram- A view to the quality of its harmony

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/C%20Major-Chord%20wave%20peaks-E.Temp.-%20Piagui%20I.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/4/2009 9:15:28 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Piagui I-Perfect fifths and Perfect fourths Diagram.doc
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : Cyclical perfect fifths and perfect fourths intervals link all the tones of Piagui I variant along four octaves and more.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Piagui%20I-Perfect%20fifths%20and%20Perfect%20fourths%20Diagram.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/4/2009 9:40:44 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /GRAPHS 7- 8 D MAJOR (86 KB).JPG
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : The Piagui D major response is a sign of high quality harmony that differs from a caotic e-tempered display. Lima, June 04, 2009. Mario Pizarro. <piagui@...>

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/GRAPHS%207-%208%20D%20MAJOR%20%2886%20KB%29.JPG

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

1/26/2010 10:13:44 PM

Yep, the old Lassus comma problem solved in Tonal-JI.
It did indeed turn out different from the version I posted over a year ago.

/tuning/files/Marcel/Lasso_Tonal-JI.mid

Happy listening.
For those that can't play pitch bend midi files correctly I'll make an mp3
tomorrow.

2/20/2010 5:32:39 AM

So.... this is sayng 53 EDO is the center of the known tuning universe?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:27 PM, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /HermanMiller/ET-Scales.png
> Uploaded by : clumma <carl@... <carl%40lumma.org>>
> Description : first ever '2-D scale tree' projection?
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/HermanMiller/ET-Scales.png
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> clumma <carl@... <carl%40lumma.org>>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@...>

2/20/2010 11:43:59 AM

Now that's just in a 2D 5-limit universe. Apply multidimensional string theory and you'll discover the wonders of 311-edo...

~D. ¶¦¬{> http://dannywier.ucoz.com

--- On Sat, 2/20/10, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [tuning] New file uploaded to tuning
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, February 20, 2010, 7:32 AM

So.... this is sayng 53 EDO is the center of the known tuning universe?

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:27 PM, <tuning@yahoogroups. com> wrote:

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /HermanMiller/ ET-Scales. png
Uploaded by : clumma <carl@...>
Description : first ever '2-D scale tree' projection?

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/tuning/ files/HermanMill er/ET-Scales. png

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help. yahoo.com/ l/us/yahoo/ groups/original/ members/forms/ general.htmlfile s

Regards,

clumma <carl@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/23/2010 1:56:35 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /CameronBobro/PunDemo03.wav
Uploaded by : misterbobro <misterbobro@...>
Description : Demonstrating "organic" intervallic/spectral puns

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/CameronBobro/PunDemo03.wav

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

misterbobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/24/2010 12:04:59 PM

Have any studies been done on this IE the scale
6:7:8:9:10:11:(12) (or have any of you done any studies on it)?

At least to me ears...this is the last segment of the harmonic series that can be played as a chord...before things begin to sound dissonant...
Also, bizarrely enough, 6 has many factors for such a small number: 1,2,3, and 6...plus it connects to the x/2 and x/3 (odd and even) parts of the series, unlike the 8th partial...might that have anything to do with its appearance of having a good range of tonal color despite being so low in the series?

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

2/25/2010 1:39:33 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Have any studies been done on this IE the scale
> 6:7:8:9:10:11:(12) (or have any of you done any studies on it)?
>
> At least to me ears...this is the last segment of the harmonic series
> that can be played as a chord...before things begin to sound
> dissonant...
> Also, bizarrely enough, 6 has many factors for such a small number:
> 1,2,3, and 6...plus it connects to the x/2 and x/3 (odd and even)
> parts of the series, unlike the 8th partial...might that have
> anything to do with its appearance of having a good range of tonal
> color despite being so low in the series?

Well, I'm not sure what you mean but surely many dyads in it reduce
to simpler ratios. One thing I don't like about it is the fact that
the two 2:3s in it go to different interval classes: 6:9 is three
scale steps while 8:12 is four. To my ears, that makes it a bit
awkward melodically. Note that 5:6:7:8:9:10 also has two 2:3s (and
thereby also two 3:4s) but doesn't have this problem.

Kalle Aho

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/25/2010 7:20:07 AM

Kalle>"One thing I don't like about it is the fact that the two 2:3s in it go to different interval classes: 6:9 is three
scale steps while 8:12 is four."
In that case, what defines the interval classes? The pattern I see is the 6:7:8:9:10:11:12 scale takes 4 steps from 8-12 to cover the same 3:2 interval the 9:6 interval covers in 3...does the number of steps needed to define a ratio alone define the "class"?

Kalle> "Note that 5:6:7:8:9:10 also has two 2:3s"
I see the 6:9, but no other 2:3'rds...unless you are counting past the octave IE 5:6:7:8:9:10:12 with the 12/8. Is that the second 2/3?

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

2/25/2010 8:24:58 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Kalle>"One thing I don't like about it is the fact that the two 2:3s
> in it go to different interval classes: 6:9 is three
> scale steps while 8:12 is four."
> In that case, what defines the interval classes? The pattern I
> see is the 6:7:8:9:10:11:12 scale takes 4 steps from 8-12 to cover
> the same 3:2 interval the 9:6 interval covers in 3...does the number
> of steps needed to define a ratio alone define the "class"?

Yes, that's it! Just like in the diatonic scale major and minor thirds
are all subtended by the same number of steps and that makes them
thirds.

> Kalle> "Note that 5:6:7:8:9:10 also has two 2:3s"
> I see the 6:9, but no other 2:3'rds...unless you are counting
> past the octave IE 5:6:7:8:9:10:12 with the 12/8. Is that the
> second 2/3?

Yes! Are you using Scala? When you use the command "show data" it
says that the scale is a "constant structure" (Erv Wilson's idea and
terminology) if every interval is always subtended by the same
number of steps. I think scales work melodically better if they are
constant structures. That said, the diatonic scale in 12-equal is
not a constant structure because augmented fourth and diminished
fifth are both the same size.

By the way, if you consider using (possibly gappy) segments higher up
in the harmonic series as scales but don't like the fact that all
chords imply the same fundamental, have you tried subharmonic
segments? They also minimize roughness but don't evoke any
periodicity buzz.

Kalle Aho

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/25/2010 2:03:48 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Kalle" <kalleaho@...> wrote:
>
> Well, I'm not sure what you mean but surely many dyads in it reduce
> to simpler ratios.

All dyads in it are 11-limit consonances, which makes it rather
special.

> One thing I don't like about it is the fact that
> the two 2:3s in it go to different interval classes: 6:9 is three
> scale steps while 8:12 is four. To my ears, that makes it a bit
> awkward melodically. Note that 5:6:7:8:9:10 also has two 2:3s (and
> thereby also two 3:4s) but doesn't have this problem.

My first foray into xenharmony was playing in Denny Genovese's
group, which used harmonic series segments almost exclusively.
Mode 5, as he would call it, is completely contained in mode 6.
But unlike mode 6, the 3:2 does not occur over the root. That
makes it much less stable.

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/25/2010 6:55:39 PM

Carl>"All dyads in it are 11-limit consonances, which makes it rather
special."
If so...then what's so nasty about 11-limit (for what bizarre reason do people consider the 6-12th harmonic series partials so called "extended JI")? It sure sounds better to me than 5-limit diatonic JI...

>"My first foray into xenharmony was playing in Denny Genovese's
group, which used harmonic series segments almost exclusively.
Mode 5, as he would call it, is completely contained in mode 6.
But unlike mode 6, the 3:2 does not occur over the root. That
makes it much less stable."

In theory, I can understand why this would be so. However my ears tell me differently and prefer "mode 6" to "mode 5" despite "mode 5" feeling more natural to write melodies in..."mode 6" sounds more "spread out" mood wise.

Another caveat...I've found swapping the second tone in "mode 6" from 7/6 to 10/9 actually makes it sound better (at least to my ears) for the same "spread out mood" reason. It's not as confident/symmetrically-beating, but it sounds more tonally relaxed for some odd reason (any ideas why?). Also to note...adding the note 11/9 after swapping the 7/6 to 10/9 from mode 6 gives a mode of Ptolemy's Homalon scales (also an "11-limit" scale) which, as of now, I've found to be the easiest 7-tone scale to compose with so far as harmony and much easier to compose with than the "theoretically perfect" "mode 7". Far as I've seen there are virtually no sour combinations of tones in that scale, only slightly more/less dissonant pairs.

I wonder if I'm the only one here who thinks that too much flatness/adherence to a harmonic series (especially in large/dense chords) can actually keep a scale from sounding as relaxed as it can be.

-Michael

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

2/26/2010 8:28:37 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"All dyads in it are 11-limit consonances, which makes it
> rather special."
> If so...then what's so nasty about 11-limit (for what bizarre
> reason do people consider the 6-12th harmonic series partials so
> called "extended JI")? It sure sounds better to me than 5-limit
> diatonic JI...

Those who call higher than 5-limit JI "extended" do so for historical
reasons. I don't know why you think doing so implies that 11-limit is
considered nasty. Ben Johnston calls it "extended JI" and has used
31-limit ratios and beyond. He certainly doesn't consider 11-limit
nasty.

Perhaps someone like Zarlino (an Italian music theorist and composer
of the Renaissance) might have thought that ratios beyond the senario
1:2:3:4:5:6 cannot be consonant but I don't know about any
contemporary explicit statements that 11-limit is nasty.

> I wonder if I'm the only one here who thinks that too much
> flatness/adherence to a harmonic series (especially in large/dense
> chords) can actually keep a scale from sounding as relaxed as it
> can be.

I don't know what you mean. Most scales discussed here even aren´t
harmonic series segments. Maybe they could be considered as made
of harmonic series segments, is that what you mean?

Kalle Aho

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/26/2010 9:02:09 AM

Me> I wonder if I'm the only one here who thinks that too much
> flatness/adherence to a harmonic series (especially in large/dense
> chords) can actually keep a scale from sounding as relaxed as it
> can be.

Kalle>"I don't know what you mean. Most scales discussed here even aren´t harmonic series segments. Maybe they could be considered as made
of harmonic series segments, is that what you mean?"

Exactly...and several parts of those scales can often be summarized into 5-limit chords that are composed of very low harmonic series segments.
The weirdest thing of all to me is coincidences such as that if you take 6:7:8:9:10:11:12 and compare it to 6:(10/9):8:9:10:11:12, the scale with 10/9 actually makes the scale (when played as a chord) seem to sound more relaxed and less sharp. I keep finding these hints that all seem to say JI is a solid model for what the ear usually follows, but it in no way summarizes all the possibilities....it actually seems "too much of a good thing" so far as low-limit JI compliance can actually come across as grating to human hearing.

The problem I see is that so many people appear to be simply trying to make JI scales with as many 5 and sometimes 7 limit type chords as possible and that's resulting in many people coming up with similar ideas rather than opening doors to new types of scales. I keep thinking that 3D temperament may hold some of the keys to this...but haven't been able to find either full copies of 3D temperament scales of explanations on how they work and/or are generated.
I wonder if there has been much research into beneficial "breaks" in
the harmonic series like that and how/why they may work (be it in the form of 3D scales, psycho-acoustic testing, or otherwise)?

-Michael

🔗Kalle <kalleaho@...>

2/26/2010 2:33:48 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> I wonder if I'm the only one here who thinks that too much
> > flatness/adherence to a harmonic series (especially in
> > large/dense chords) can actually keep a scale from sounding as
> > relaxed as it can be.
>
> Kalle>"I don't know what you mean. Most scales discussed here even
> aren´t harmonic series segments. Maybe they could be considered as
> made of harmonic series segments, is that what you mean?"
>
> Exactly...and several parts of those scales can often be
> summarized into 5-limit chords that are composed of very low
> harmonic series segments.
>
> The problem I see is that so many people appear to be simply
> trying to make JI scales with as many 5 and sometimes 7 limit type
> chords as possible and that's resulting in many people coming up
> with similar ideas rather than opening doors to new types of
> scales.

I think there are very good reasons why this is so. If you want a
scale with both a manageable number of tones and big consonant
high-limit chords there is a problem. The bigger the chords the less
there are chord roots at which the bass line can rest. When the whole
scale is a chord you most likely will have only one scale degree
against which the scale sounds stable when played as a chord. Without
multiple points of repose you don't really have chord progressions or
satisfying bass lines that go somewhere. I don't know about you, but
I think that is just boring to the max!

And if you wonder why the scales with many smaller basic chords tend
to be 5- and 7-limit I think this is because intervals lower in the
harmonic series (particularly the 2:3) must be included in a chord if
there is to be a strong sense of root. Smaller chords can include
fewer intervals than big ones. Intervals higher up in the harmonic
series don't sound particularly nice without the "scaffolding" of
lower ones. I think that explains the popularity of 5- and 7-limit.

Kalle Aho

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/26/2010 3:16:43 PM

Kalle>"When the whole scale is a chord you most likely will have only one scale degree
against which the scale sounds stable when played as a chord."
What do you mean by "one scale degree"? I've found several scales that more or less work as "chord scales" that work well across multiple octaves and can change feel by changing root tone very well.
I will also say...having the whole scale be a low-limit chord get boring very quickly as there isn't much possible by way of changing tonal color by, say, changing the bass note used.
That's why I prefer having so called "scale chords" have a fairly high common denominator such as 18 or 24 where you get x/6, x/3, x/2, x/4, x/9, x/12 harmonic series segment sub-chords possible from within the major x/18, x/24...chord . Come to think of it, JI diatonic IS a "24th harmonic chord"...albeit with some high roughness points around the half steps (and thus not my favorite 24th harmonic-based scale as Ptolemy's Homalon scales beat it out for that, at least currently).

>"And if you wonder why the scales with many smaller basic chords tend to be 5- and 7-limit I think this is because intervals lower in the harmonic series (particularly the 2:3)"
In general, agreed. What gets me is when I, say, make a scale with mostly ratios with denominators visible by 2 or 3 and occasionally a ratio with a 11 or even 13 denominator works best to "level out" a would-be flat harmonic series part of the scale. Granted, so far I've seen it's the exception rather than the norm...but (again) there are so many scales which cover virtually all angles of 5 and 7 limit around it begs the question how much more could we learn if we broke past those standards.

🔗Kalle Aho <kalleaho@...>

2/26/2010 4:52:40 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Kalle>"When the whole scale is a chord you most likely will have
> only one scale degree against which the scale sounds stable when
> played as a chord."
> What do you mean by "one scale degree"?

A particular note of a scale.

> I've found several scales that more or less work as "chord scales"
> that work well across multiple octaves and can change feel by
> changing root tone very well.

Example?

Kalle Aho

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/27/2010 9:21:52 AM

-Note: yahoo said this message did not send correctly last time: if it turns out to be a duplicate, please feel free to delete it.
************************
Kalle>"When the whole scale is a chord you most likely will have only one scale degree
against which the scale sounds stable when played as a chord."
What do you mean by "one scale degree"? I've found several scales that more or less work as "chord scales" that work well across multiple octaves and can change feel by changing root tone very well.
I will also say...having the whole scale be a low-limit chord get boring very quickly as there isn't much possible by way of changing tonal color by, say, changing the bass note used.
That's why I prefer having so called "scale chords" have a fairly high common denominator such as 18 or 24 where you get x/6, x/3, x/2, x/4, x/9, x/12 harmonic series segment sub-chords possible from within the major x/18, x/24...chord . Come to think of it, JI diatonic IS a "24th harmonic chord"...albeit with some high roughness points around the half steps (and thus not my favorite 24th harmonic-based scale as Ptolemy's Homalon scales beat it out for that, at least currently).

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/3/2010 6:28:54 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/3125_2916_temp.ogg
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <p.parizek@...>
Description : A chord progression in the 3125/2916 temperament

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/3125_2916_temp.ogg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

petrparizek2000 <p.parizek@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/3/2010 6:32:04 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/3125_2916_adji.mid
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <p.parizek@...>
Description : A chord progression leading to a 3125/2916 pump, adaptive JI

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/3125_2916_adji.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

petrparizek2000 <p.parizek@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/13/2010 1:17:34 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(Tonal-JI)_drone.mid
Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@...>
Description : Playing a continues D-F#-A drone to show tonality as D (major-minor), all notes harmonize with the tonal chord.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI%29_drone.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

mdevelde <m.develde@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/14/2010 11:37:46 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/ReflectedSuperParticularVS JIDiatonic.mp3
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : Comparing the two systems' response in a "worst case scenario" IE playing a 9-note chord...note the difference in relaxedness of the first chord (in my tuning) from the second (in JI diatonic)

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/ReflectedSuperParticularVS%20JIDiatonic.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/15/2010 10:02:12 PM

> File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(Tonal-JI)_drone.mid
> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
> Description : Playing a continues D-F#-A drone to show tonality as D
> (major-minor), all notes harmonize with the tonal chord.
>

Here again, corrected:
/tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(Tonal-JI_15-04-2010)_tonicdrone.mid</tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI_15-04-2010%29_tonicdrone.mid>

Playing a continues 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 drone to indicate the tonic of
the piece.
And you'll hear that every note and chord harmonizes to this tonic chord
according to the 6-limit tonal-ji harmonic model.
It's magic :)

Marcel

🔗Rustom Mody <rustompmody@...>

4/16/2010 8:35:52 AM

Thanks Marcel -- I keep hearing it over and over again -- and sobbing -- I dont know why.

Anyhow some comments:
1. I cannot make out the difference between the first version and this
2. What soundfont are we supposed to hear it in? It sounds best to me in PC51d (from http://www.personalcopy.com/sfarkfonts1.htm) but maybe it could be better?
3. Also when we are asked to hear a midi file, especially regarding tuning, we need to know if the midi is tuned to some specific tuning or it needs some such (or this is a stupid question?? dunno...)To my piano-oriented ears the trombone intrinsically (in PC51d at least) sounds a bit off-key or something but then I guess thats what makes for the mysterious quality??
4. The ending is painfully abrupt

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

4/16/2010 8:47:20 AM

Hi Mody,

(is that your first name or last?)

Thanks Marcel -- I keep hearing it over and over again -- and sobbing -- I
> dont know why.
>
> Anyhow some comments:
> 1. I cannot make out the difference between the first version and this
>

It's quite different at some places, but never mind this. Best to compare
against 12tet which you'll find on my website www.develde.net
But, perhaps your midi files are not playing pitch bends back correctly?

> 2. What soundfont are we supposed to hear it in? It sounds best to me in
> PC51d (from http://www.personalcopy.com/sfarkfonts1.htm) but maybe it
> could be better?
>

Whichever soundfont you prefer and feel comfortable with to asses the
tuning.
I'm using the default trombone soundfont of my soundcard.
I'll upload a mp3 recording of my own soundfont later.

> 3. Also when we are asked to hear a midi file, especially regarding tuning,
> we need to know if the midi is tuned to some specific tuning or it needs
> some such (or this is a stupid question?? dunno...)To my piano-oriented ears
> the trombone intrinsically (in PC51d at least) sounds a bit off-key or
> something but then I guess thats what makes for the mysterious quality??
>

I've uploaded a retuned to my tonal-ji (using melodyne dna) real trombone
quartet recording:

http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28Tonal-JI_15-04-2010%29.mp3

If you hear the tuning in the midi file different than this one, then you'll
know your midi player isn't playing back the pitch bends correctly.

> 4. The ending is painfully abrupt

Yes the midi file is without any expressive playing.
Try the retuned real trombone quartet, it's very expressive.

7/11/2010 12:29:44 PM

Please redownload.
I had one last error in it.
1/1 6/5 3/2 doesn't go to 3/2 243/128 9/4
but to 3/2 256/135 9/4
Melodies don't move with 256/243, but with 16/15 and 135/128. This is basis
of counterpoint.
And apparently I can hear a Schisma :)
It's perfect now :)

Marcel's Just Intonation I call it.
M-JI

Marcel

On 11 July 2010 19:01, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(m-JI_11-July-2010).mid
> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
> Description : Perfect Just Intonation!!! History made! :-)
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
>
> /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28m-JI_11-July-2010%29.mid
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>
>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/11/2010 7:26:46 PM

Oh bloody hell..
I rushed too much and made new errors when trying to fix others.
Now fixed those errors too.
The finished without errors Drei Equale no1 in minor key is in my folder:
/tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/
It never sounded this well.

However.. I allready knew this piece was walking a fine line between major
and minor.
And after reconsideration.. I must say it crossed the line.
This piece isn't in minor, it's in major!
I'll finish the major version this night. Much much MUCH more consonant.
The minor version is taking it too far.

Marcel

On 11 July 2010 21:29, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Please redownload.
> I had one last error in it.
> 1/1 6/5 3/2 doesn't go to 3/2 243/128 9/4
> but to 3/2 256/135 9/4
> Melodies don't move with 256/243, but with 16/15 and 135/128. This is basis
> of counterpoint.
> And apparently I can hear a Schisma :)
> It's perfect now :)
>
> Marcel's Just Intonation I call it.
> M-JI
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2010 19:01, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This email message is a notification to let you know that
>> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
>> group.
>>
>> File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(m-JI_11-July-2010).mid
>> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>> Description : Perfect Just Intonation!!! History made! :-)
>>
>> You can access this file at the URL:
>>
>> /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28m-JI_11-July-2010%29.mid
>>
>> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>>
>> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/11/2010 10:44:59 PM

Pfff
Finally done.
I had been straying too far from my original good JI thinking and was trying
to draw silly conclusions too early which made me mess up again while I knew
I was so close.
My apologies to the list for too many messages and changes again.
This is the last one I'm replying to myself / fixing things :)

It's not at all become the consonant version I was thinking about.
And I'm not sure wether to call it in major or minor either.
But here it is:
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
It's also in my folder in the files section.
It's completely in one key now C major / A minor.
Ending is the saddest major chord ever.

Marcel

On 12 July 2010 04:26, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh bloody hell..
> I rushed too much and made new errors when trying to fix others.
> Now fixed those errors too.
> The finished without errors Drei Equale no1 in minor key is in my folder:
> /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/
>
> It never sounded this well.
>
> However.. I allready knew this piece was walking a fine line between major
> and minor.
> And after reconsideration.. I must say it crossed the line.
> This piece isn't in minor, it's in major!
> I'll finish the major version this night. Much much MUCH more consonant.
> The minor version is taking it too far.
>
> Marcel
>
>
>
> On 11 July 2010 21:29, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
>> Please redownload.
>> I had one last error in it.
>> 1/1 6/5 3/2 doesn't go to 3/2 243/128 9/4
>> but to 3/2 256/135 9/4
>> Melodies don't move with 256/243, but with 16/15 and 135/128. This is
>> basis of counterpoint.
>> And apparently I can hear a Schisma :)
>> It's perfect now :)
>>
>> Marcel's Just Intonation I call it.
>> M-JI
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11 July 2010 19:01, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This email message is a notification to let you know that
>>> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
>>> group.
>>>
>>> File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(m-JI_11-July-2010).mid
>>> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>>> Description : Perfect Just Intonation!!! History made! :-)
>>>
>>> You can access this file at the URL:
>>>
>>> /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28m-JI_11-July-2010%29.mid
>>>
>>> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
>>>
>>> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> mdevelde <m.develde@gmail.com <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/11/2010 10:58:02 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
> It's also in my folder in the files section.
> It's completely in one key now C major / A minor.
> Ending is the saddest major chord ever.

Seems like one of your better efforts, but when are you going to break away from retuning Drei Equales?

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/11/2010 11:09:39 PM

> >
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
> > It's also in my folder in the files section.
> > It's completely in one key now C major / A minor.
> > Ending is the saddest major chord ever.
>
> Seems like one of your better efforts, but when are you going to break away
> from retuning Drei Equales?

Thanks Gene! :)
This is the first time I really needed a positive feedback, glad you could
give it :)
This piece has gotten too much under my skin haha.

Well. I'm thinking this is it. Now I can finally let go. No more retuning
this one :)
This piece was the best test piece I've come across.
Up untill now it simply refused to sound "right" (even though at times I
thought it did)
So it has been the main testbed for my tuning theories.
If one of my theories couldn't retune the Drei Equale no1 to musical, "right
sounding" and emotional satisfaction, it wasn't good or ready.

Still would like to get the no2 and no3 done aswell, but they don't hold the
same importance to me.
They can be tuned in several ways and I can't tell wether it's "right" or
not as good as with the no1. Don't know why.
So hopefully the no1 tuning will stick and I'm done :) And no2 and no3
shouldn't give too much trouble.

Marcel

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/12/2010 12:54:57 AM

If the patch you rendered it with didn't have vibrato, I might swear the piece was monophonic. These JI chords don't sound like chords at all to me, they just sound like a thickening of the timbre. Perhaps if it was rendered by an actual ensemble and not a soundfont, the JI would sound better (i.e. I would be able to hear the chords), but as it stands, it's like some weird sonic illusion--I can't tell if the chord is major or minor until one of the notes drifts out of tune when the vibrato kicks in.

I think you've definitely succeeded, Marcel, but I don't know if that's a good thing. You've proven that you can successfully render common-practice music in pure 6-limit JI without it sounding "wrong", and yet I daresay I dislike the purity of it. The voices become too indistinct when the harmonies are so pure, and I can't make out the chords. To me, this lessens the emotional impact of the piece. Though like I said, maybe it's just the soundfont...but then, I doubt an ensemble of trombones could ever render your pure JI in practice. Perhaps nothing short of a synthesizer ever could. So, a quandry....

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Pfff
> Finally done.
> I had been straying too far from my original good JI thinking and was trying
> to draw silly conclusions too early which made me mess up again while I knew
> I was so close.
> My apologies to the list for too many messages and changes again.
> This is the last one I'm replying to myself / fixing things :)
>
> It's not at all become the consonant version I was thinking about.
> And I'm not sure wether to call it in major or minor either.
> But here it is:
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
> It's also in my folder in the files section.
> It's completely in one key now C major / A minor.
> Ending is the saddest major chord ever.
>
> Marcel
>
>
> On 12 July 2010 04:26, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh bloody hell..
> > I rushed too much and made new errors when trying to fix others.
> > Now fixed those errors too.
> > The finished without errors Drei Equale no1 in minor key is in my folder:
> > /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/
> >
> > It never sounded this well.
> >
> > However.. I allready knew this piece was walking a fine line between major
> > and minor.
> > And after reconsideration.. I must say it crossed the line.
> > This piece isn't in minor, it's in major!
> > I'll finish the major version this night. Much much MUCH more consonant.
> > The minor version is taking it too far.
> >
> > Marcel
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11 July 2010 21:29, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> >
> >> Please redownload.
> >> I had one last error in it.
> >> 1/1 6/5 3/2 doesn't go to 3/2 243/128 9/4
> >> but to 3/2 256/135 9/4
> >> Melodies don't move with 256/243, but with 16/15 and 135/128. This is
> >> basis of counterpoint.
> >> And apparently I can hear a Schisma :)
> >> It's perfect now :)
> >>
> >> Marcel's Just Intonation I call it.
> >> M-JI
> >>
> >> Marcel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11 July 2010 19:01, <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> >>> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> >>> group.
> >>>
> >>> File : /Marcel de Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_(m-JI_11-July-2010).mid
> >>> Uploaded by : mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
> >>> Description : Perfect Just Intonation!!! History made! :-)
> >>>
> >>> You can access this file at the URL:
> >>>
> >>> /tuning/files/Marcel%20de%20Velde/Drei_Equale_No1_%28m-JI_11-July-2010%29.mid
> >>>
> >>> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> >>>
> >>> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> mdevelde <m.develde@... <m.develde%40gmail.com>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/12/2010 6:13:07 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> If the patch you rendered it with didn't have vibrato, I might swear the piece was monophonic. These JI chords don't sound like chords at all to me, they just sound like a thickening of the timbre.

How much detuning is required to make them sound like chords to you?

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/12/2010 7:55:48 AM

Wow...don't know what to say...the effect is akin to running a few band-pass
filters over a fixed harmonic timber. Exactly what Igs seems to be describing.

I know I'm usually a huge supporter of the idea that much micro-tonal music
makes the contrast between consonance and dissonance too large (IE the
consonance is too pure and the dissonance too sour).
But here it seems there is the opposite issue: virtually no contrast making it
all feel "flat"...the fact that flattening isn't just applied every now and then
but through the whole piece.

Mathematically, it's awesome you managed to pull this off. :-) But
artistically, I'm wondering what the uses are. I am guessing a good idea may be
to use your algorithm when the artist wants purity and be able to turn it off
when the artist wants more contrast.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/12/2010 10:14:38 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> If the patch you rendered it with didn't have vibrato, I might
> swear the piece was monophonic. These JI chords don't sound
> like chords at all to me, they just sound like a thickening of
> the timbre. Perhaps if it was rendered by an actual ensemble
> and not a soundfont,

Dude that's a midi file - whatever you're hearing is your
soundfont, not his.

> You've proven that you can successfully render common-practice
> music in pure 6-limit JI without it sounding "wrong",

LOL, he's proved nothing of the kind.

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/12/2010 10:30:47 AM

Finished no2 aswell!! :-)
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No2_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
Also in my folder in the files section of this list.

It's in the same key as no1!
C major / A minor.
So much for normal music theory...
It's sounding beautifully sad now :)

It's a great experience to listen to no1 first and then no2.
They transition perfectly.

Marcel

On 12 July 2010 07:44, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

>
> http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No1_%28M-JI_12-July-2010%29.mid
> It's also in my folder in the files section.
> It's completely in one key now C major / A minor.
> Ending is the saddest major chord ever.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/12/2010 10:55:13 AM

> If the patch you rendered it with didn't have vibrato, I might swear the
> piece was monophonic. These JI chords don't sound like chords at all to me,
> they just sound like a thickening of the timbre. Perhaps if it was rendered
> by an actual ensemble and not a soundfont, the JI would sound better (i.e. I
> would be able to hear the chords), but as it stands, it's like some weird
> sonic illusion--I can't tell if the chord is major or minor until one of the
> notes drifts out of tune when the vibrato kicks in.
>

It does sound very different indeed when played by an actual trombone
quartet.
The standard trombone midi soundfont (probably the same sound in your
onboard soundcard as mine, they seem to be semi standard), is a terrible
sound.
It is the sound with the strongest overtones I know of. (it's somehow even
stronger than an unfiltered pure saw wave)
That's why I like it for testing tuning. But the drawback is that it's often
difficult to hear the individual notes.
I'm going to render it soon as mp3's with a nicer trombone sample and a
csound saw wave (perhaps eq'd / filtered).

As for major/minor. This piece seems to play a very fine line between major
and minor.
And I actually can't tell wether to say it's in major or minor. And most
chords aren't the "normal" major and minor chords.

> I think you've definitely succeeded, Marcel, but I don't know if that's a
> good thing. You've proven that you can successfully render common-practice
> music in pure 6-limit JI without it sounding "wrong", and yet I daresay I
> dislike the purity of it. The voices become too indistinct when the
> harmonies are so pure, and I can't make out the chords. To me, this lessens
> the emotional impact of the piece. Though like I said, maybe it's just the
> soundfont...but then, I doubt an ensemble of trombones could ever render
> your pure JI in practice. Perhaps nothing short of a synthesizer ever could.
> So, a quandry....
>
> -Igs
>
Glad you don't hear it as "wrong" either! :)
Which is an amazing feat actually, considering this is by FAR the most
"dissonant" tuning I've ever done. It's an extremely dissonant / sad piece.
It also amazes me how that ending chord manages to sound "right".

It's true for a trombone it would be hard / next to impossible to play
exact.
But for for instance a piano it can be tuned perfectly in JI to one "key"
and could play this piece in perfect tune.
I'm going to tune a few piano pieces after I finish Drei Equale no3, and
will use pianoteq to render them, but will also retune my mother's real
piano and perhaps I can make a recording of that too :)

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/12/2010 11:03:16 AM

Hi Michael,

Wow...don't know what to say...the effect is akin to running a few band-pass
> filters over a fixed harmonic timber. Exactly what Igs seems to be
> describing.
>

It's the "key" / "tonic" of the piece your hearing I think :)

>
> I know I'm usually a huge supporter of the idea that much micro-tonal
> music makes the contrast between consonance and dissonance too large (IE the
> consonance is too pure and the dissonance too sour).
> But here it seems there is the opposite issue: virtually no contrast
> making it all feel "flat"...the fact that flattening isn't just applied
> every now and then but through the whole piece.
>

Yes it has much dissonance in many places in the piece, but it's due to the
piece itself.
Another piece can sound perfectly consonant.

> Mathematically, it's awesome you managed to pull this off. :-) But
> artistically, I'm wondering what the uses are. I am guessing a good idea
> may be to use your algorithm when the artist wants purity and be able to
> turn it off when the artist wants more contrast.
>

It's not an algorithm, it's a fixed 12tone scale for one "key" (so a
modulation would transpose the scale).
This thing is very easy to use :)

1/1 135/128 9/8 32/27 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 5/3 16/9 15/8 2/1 for C
major / A minor.
I'm calling it Marcel's Just Intonation :) Or M-JI for short.
However.. sometimes this will agree to what normal music theory sais is the
"key", but sometimes it will completely disagree.
So don't expect it to work because a piece is said to be in key "x" by
normal music theory.
I'll elaborate on JI and keys etc later.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/12/2010 11:57:24 AM

The trilogy is complete!!! :-)

http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_No3_%28M-JI_12-July_2010%29.mid

This one went real easy.. as (like I was hoping) it's in the same key
as the other 2 :)
Master Beethoven did good!

All 3 can be heard at www.develde.net
Or in my folder (Marcel de Velde) in the files section of this group.

Marcel

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/12/2010 12:56:05 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> How much detuning is required to make them sound like chords to you?
>

An exact value? I have no idea. Much experimentation would be required.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/12/2010 1:08:27 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
> It does sound very different indeed when played by an actual trombone
> quartet.
> The standard trombone midi soundfont (probably the same sound in your
> onboard soundcard as mine, they seem to be semi standard), is a terrible
> sound.
> It is the sound with the strongest overtones I know of. (it's somehow even
> stronger than an unfiltered pure saw wave)
> That's why I like it for testing tuning. But the drawback is that it's often
> difficult to hear the individual notes.
> I'm going to render it soon as mp3's with a nicer trombone sample and a
> csound saw wave (perhaps eq'd / filtered).

Ha, totally didn't realize it was a MIDI file! Maybe I can get Logic to load it and try it with a better sound, though I suspect the effect of "all blurring into one" will only be stronger, unless I give each voice a distinct sound.

> As for major/minor. This piece seems to play a very fine line between major
> and minor.
> And I actually can't tell wether to say it's in major or minor. And most
> chords aren't the "normal" major and minor chords.

So maybe it's the fact that the chords aren't "normal" major and minor chords that makes all the harmonies sound flat and ambiguous to me?

> Glad you don't hear it as "wrong" either! :)
> Which is an amazing feat actually, considering this is by FAR the most
> "dissonant" tuning I've ever done. It's an extremely dissonant / sad piece.
> It also amazes me how that ending chord manages to sound "right".

Just because it doesn't sound "wrong" doesn't mean it sounds "right". There were no notes that sounded like a "flub" or out-of-key, but I still don't think it properly expresses the emotion of the piece. I didn't hear it as dissonant at all, and if it's supposed to be a dissonant piece, then you totally butchered that.

> It's true for a trombone it would be hard / next to impossible to play
> exact.
> But for for instance a piano it can be tuned perfectly in JI to one "key"
> and could play this piece in perfect tune.
> I'm going to tune a few piano pieces after I finish Drei Equale no3, and
> will use pianoteq to render them, but will also retune my mother's real
> piano and perhaps I can make a recording of that too :)

Let me be the first to point out that pianos, because they produce a timbre with a slightly-stretched harmonic spectrum, are not suited to playing in JI. You are familiar with the fact that piano tuners stretch the octaves to compensate for the inharmonicity of the hammered strings, right?

-Igs

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/12/2010 1:18:02 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Yes it has much dissonance in many places in the piece, but it's due to the
> piece itself.
> Another piece can sound perfectly consonant.

Why not stick Scala seq files in the directory along with the midis so we know what we are talking about?

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/12/2010 2:06:25 PM

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

> Ha, totally didn't realize it was a MIDI file! Maybe I can
> get Logic to load it and try it with a better sound, though I
> suspect the effect of "all blurring into one" will only be
> stronger, unless I give each voice a distinct sound.

Giving each voice a distinct timbre will help. Giving each
voice a distinct stereo pan in the mix would help even more.
And staggering the note attacks a few ms would help even more
(it sounds like these MIDIs were generated from score, so
that note attacks are artificially synched).

What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens
with a sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one
better before.

>> It's an extremely dissonant / sad piece.

Marcel wrote this, but for the record, Beethoven's chorale-type
writing is hymnody-inspired and is supposed to be consonant.

> Let me be the first to point out that pianos, because they
> produce a timbre with a slightly-stretched harmonic spectrum,
> are not suited to playing in JI.

Let me be the 50th person to point out that this is an utter
falsehood, as is easily heard in many recordings of JI-tuned
pianos.

> You are familiar with the fact that piano tuners stretch
> the octaves to compensate for the inharmonicity of the
> hammered strings, right?

There are several reasons for octave stretch, and this is
one of them. Octaves are only really stretched in the
extreme registers of the instrument. In the middle octaves,
most important, inharmonicity is not significant.

-Carl

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/12/2010 5:46:02 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens
> with a sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one
> better before.

I dunno...I wonder if the "sour" chords you mention aren't also the same as the few chords whose identity I can actually distinguish. If I could read music and knew the score, maybe we could compare notes as to which chords I find intelligible and which chords I find unacceptably "blurred".

> > Let me be the first to point out that pianos, because they
> > produce a timbre with a slightly-stretched harmonic spectrum,
> > are not suited to playing in JI.
>
> Let me be the 50th person to point out that this is an utter
> falsehood, as is easily heard in many recordings of JI-tuned
> pianos.
>
> There are several reasons for octave stretch, and this is
> one of them. Octaves are only really stretched in the
> extreme registers of the instrument. In the middle octaves,
> most important, inharmonicity is not significant.

Well that explains a lot. I mean, I've always been told that pianos are slightly inharmonic and you can't tune them to pure octaves etc. etc., but then I go and listen to Terry Riley's "The Harp of New Albion" and it sounds fantastic, so I just assumed that Riley used a "stretched JI" or something. So is the "inharmonicity" of the piano a myth, or is it just insignificant in tuning a piano? Gosh, I seem to remember Michael harping on my "max dissonance" experiments because I used a piano as the main sound, since he claimed the piano is a "cheating" timbre due to its inharmonicity...yet I always swore that pianos sounded gosh-darn harmonic to my ears! I mean, I always thought the sound of a piano made the differences between tunings more "obvious" than darn near anything else...I can tolerate 13-tET in saw waves, but not on a piano! I just thought I was weird or something.

Thanks for the correction, Carl. I won't perpetuate the "inharmonic piano" myth anymore.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/12/2010 7:24:22 PM

Heya Igs,

> > There are several reasons for octave stretch, and this is
> > one of them. Octaves are only really stretched in the
> > extreme registers of the instrument. In the middle octaves,
> > most important, inharmonicity is not significant.
>
> Well that explains a lot. I mean, I've always been told that
> pianos are slightly inharmonic and you can't tune them to
> pure octaves etc. etc., but then I go and listen to Terry
> Riley's "The Harp of New Albion" and it sounds fantastic, so
> I just assumed that Riley used a "stretched JI" or something.

I assume Riley (or his tuner) did stretch the octaves, but I
don't think that makes it non-just. For one thing, instead
of saying the octaves are > 2, you can just as well define a
method of calculating fundamental pitch that makes the octaves
exactly 2. In fact that's arguably a simpler way to account
for the fact that the ideal stretch isn't constant across the
keyboard... analogous to say, tuning the octaves beatless by
ear instead remembering all the numbers in a stretch curve.

FWIW, I have tuned several pianos in 5- and 7-limit JI and on
one occasion I made all the octaves 1200 cents, according to
Peterson. It sounded just fine (after a fashion) though
definitely not the same as if I'd stretched them.

>So is the "inharmonicity" of the piano a myth, or is it
>just insignificant in tuning a piano?

It's certainly significant in the lowest octave or two of
the instrument -- those big wound strings are highly
inharmonic. But because the critical bandwidth is so wide
at low frequencies, we seldom play chords in the bass and
the inharmonicity of those strings isn't such a big deal.

In addition to inharmonicity, there are nonlinearities in
human pitch perception over the enormous compass of the
modern piano, even with sine tones. And even after you've
taken care of all that, extra stretch gives a certain
metallophone-like quality to the instrument that some
prefer (according to Easley Blackwood, tuners tend to use
much more stretch on concert grands than on other pianos
for some reason, even though the former have longer strings
and therefore less inharmonicity).

> Gosh, I seem to remember Michael harping on my "max
> dissonance" experiments because I used a piano as the main
> sound, since he claimed the piano is a "cheating" timbre
> due to its inharmonicity...

Yes well, don't believe everything you hear... especially
if you hear it from Michael.

> yet I always swore that pianos sounded gosh-darn harmonic
> to my ears! I mean, I always thought the sound of a piano
> made the differences between tunings more "obvious" than
> darn near anything else... I can tolerate 13-tET in saw
> waves, but not on a piano! I just thought I was weird or
> something.

The degree of (musically significant) harmonicity of any
complex tone is always immediately apparent to the listener,
in the degree to which s/he can confidently identify its
pitch. Your ears are all you need! If you listen to the
low notes on a piano, you'll find they don't exactly wear
their pitches on their sleeves. In fact they're largely
suggested by what you've been playing above. Norman Henry
relayed to me a story confided in him by an experienced
Bosendorfer tuner -- he'd never even put his tuning hammer
on the extra notes Bose famously provides!

http://www.stevesclassiccars.com/images/Bosendorfer-7-23-02-2.jpg

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/12/2010 7:34:39 PM

Igs>Perhaps if it was rendered by an actual ensemble
> and not a soundfont,

>"Dude that's a midi file - whatever you're hearing is your
soundfont, not his."
Carl, I can swear you read it wrongly...Igs appears to me to obviously be
saying the problem is that it's MIDI and thus uses soundfonts. He never said
"your soundfont is bad" but "a soundfont is bad".

Igs>> You've proven that you can successfully render common-practice
>> music in pure 6-limit JI without it sounding "wrong",
Carl>LOL, he's proved nothing of the kind.
I think it's obvious here who is the wildly opinionated one here. If anyone
can prove there is a "right" IE something say 60% of people agree sounds less
pure I'll believe them.

Personally it seems obvious: there is very little beating in Marcel's MIDI
file, high periodicity, and a general sense of resolve on both of the computers
I tried it on (yes, meaning with different sound fonts)...all of which relate to
various definitions of purity.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/12/2010 8:31:28 PM

Igs>"Gosh, I seem to remember Michael harping on my "max dissonance" experiments
because I used a piano as the main sound, since he claimed the piano is a
"cheating" timbre due to its inharmonicity...yet I always swore that pianos
sounded gosh-darn harmonic to my ears!"
Muahahaha! But seriously, even if a make a chord like 2:3:4:5 I sense a
significant difference with a more harmonic guitar vs. a less harmonic piano
sound. Playing the two instruments as single notes, though, there seems to be
too little inharmonicity in the piano to truly matter. Same goes with things
like Clarinets, whose similar-to-piano amounts of inharmonicity (especially
relative to even harmonics) appears to in part explain why they do so much
better in BP then 12TET for a good few people.
Then again, when I said cheating I realize it's not exactly huge cheating far
as in-harmonicity: it's not like you're using a bell as the lead instruments.
:-P

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/12/2010 8:38:52 PM

Carl>"Yes well, don't believe everything you hear... especially
if you hear it from Michael."
I guess I shouldn't in the slightest bit trust the Princeton Music article I
read the clarinet vs. piano vs. trumpet vs. guitar timbre article I read it from
either then (which contained a graph Chris said was an excellent example)?!
Come on...even if you don't agree with it it's not like I'm the only person
around who believes in it (that pianos and clarinets, for example, are less
harmonic than guitars but more harmonic than things like bells).

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/12/2010 10:06:24 PM

Not that this in any way merits a debate, but I will just say that for my 2¢, I find the timbre of a piano to be drastically less "forgiving" of mistuned intervals than guitar. I love the sound of 8-EDO and 13-EDO on guitar, or with harp-like timbres using Logic's "Sculpture" synth, but rendering the exact same songs with a piano timbre becomes almost intolerable to my ears. Even compared to saw waves, I find the sound of a piano less forgiving. That was the main reason I chose a piano sound for my experiments in max consonance/dissonance. But then, as with all my opinions about tuning, this is just based on my ears, and we all know that our ears can lie and only mathematics can tell us what sounds good ;-p.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Igs>"Gosh, I seem to remember Michael harping on my "max dissonance" experiments
> because I used a piano as the main sound, since he claimed the piano is a
> "cheating" timbre due to its inharmonicity...yet I always swore that pianos
> sounded gosh-darn harmonic to my ears!"
> Muahahaha! But seriously, even if a make a chord like 2:3:4:5 I sense a
> significant difference with a more harmonic guitar vs. a less harmonic piano
> sound. Playing the two instruments as single notes, though, there seems to be
> too little inharmonicity in the piano to truly matter. Same goes with things
> like Clarinets, whose similar-to-piano amounts of inharmonicity (especially
> relative to even harmonics) appears to in part explain why they do so much
> better in BP then 12TET for a good few people.
> Then again, when I said cheating I realize it's not exactly huge cheating far
> as in-harmonicity: it's not like you're using a bell as the lead instruments.
> :-P
>

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/12/2010 10:49:04 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Not that this in any way merits a debate, but I will just say
> that for my 2¢, I find the timbre of a piano to be drastically
> less "forgiving" of mistuned intervals than guitar.

I agree in general, though a lot of different timbres can come
out of a guitar. I'd say it's especially true for acoustic
guitar, where the timbre decays faster and has more attack
cruft on the front. I'm not entirely sure why it's true but
you're not the first person to have noticed. Blackwood mentions
it in connection with his 15-ET guitar suite, and Paul and I
discussed it briefly in person one time, and it's been brought
up here several times also.

>Even compared to saw waves, I find the sound of a piano less
>forgiving.

Saw waves almost sound dissonant on their own, they have so
much energy in their upper partials. Like guitar with lots
of distortion, they can hide a great many evils.

-Carl

🔗jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>

7/12/2010 10:53:56 PM

>I find the timbre of a piano to be drastically less "forgiving" of mistuned intervals than guitar.

I have to agree. I think though it is not a product of the timbre so much as it is a product of our conditioning to be used to the partials' interacting only in 12-edo harmonies exactly. We are exposed to most timbres with all the locations in between our standard tunings through, at least, vibrato and pitch bend, but the piano has never lent itself functionally to these things so we never hear them, and mabe because we never hear them they don't sound good when we do.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 12:03:55 AM

Hi Gene,

Why not stick Scala seq files in the directory along with the midis so we
> know what we are talking about?
>

Sorry I thought I had written it down with the midi post but I apparently
didn't.
The tuning is 1/1 135/128 32/27 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 405/256 5/3 16/9 15/8 2/1
on C for the key of C-major / A-minor.
You know, the transposed Ramis monochord.

And coincidence has it that all 3 Drei Equale are in C-major / A-minor
(contrary to what normal music theory would make of them)

So simply load the M-JI scale on C in Scala, and retune the 12edo MIDI and
it's done.
There are only 12 pitches per octave as the pieces are in one key (if there
had been a modulation the scale would be transposed with the modulation, but
this is not needed with these pieces)

The score is on my webpage as a pdf for all 3 Drei Equale:
www.develde.net under the competition part.
It takes a little getting used to reading trombone score. But one could load
the MIDI file aswell in a score program and read from that.
And the it's simple, a C is 1/1, C# 135/128, F 4/3, etc.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 12:22:52 AM

Hi Carl,

What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens
> with a sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one
> better before.
>

As I've explained many times before (many of those many times were even to
you personally).
I see a 9/8 4/3 5/3 chord as a Just Intonation chord. (the chord you just
called a "sour-ass non-JI chord")
I have defended this chord for well over a year now on this list (if not 2)
Btw the no1 doesn't only open with this chord, it uses it the most of all
minor chords, and the piece ends with a 9/8 45/32 5/3 chord (yes the wolf
major, and it sounds right!! an amazing feat in itself. And the no2 opens
and ends with the 9/8 45/32 5/3 chord! Ha!)

It doesn't matter to me that you choose not to see this as JI.
But you don't have any right saying that I can't call it a JI chord.
It is clear for some time now that my idea of how JI works is completely
different from your view.
You're tying something like trying to get every single chord harmonic and
with pure fifths etc, and adaptive JI to achieve this.
Well.. your version of JI is not JI to me, and sound absolutely horrible.
Far far far worse than 12edo.
I'm using the word Just Inonation in the true sense of the words (and can
defend that endlessly if you wish to go there)
And I've called it "Marcel's Just Intonation" to diffirentiate it from the
terrible JI people like you have thrown around this list for years.

I've been really slow with rendering the Drei Eqale competition entries.
I've still to finish the CSound instrument to render them (kept getting
distracted by tuning theory which had my priority)
And though several people were reportedly working on a version, I didn't
receive any new entries after my extention of the deadline, which didn't
make me hurry with the rendering either. Right now I don't have any really
serious entries apart from Peter's version (which was made before there was
any competition)
But I'll render them soonish, and you'll be able to hear that nothing really
comes close.
And again Carl.. if you can somehow do better.. I'd love to hear it ;-) Also
will make you win 100 euro.

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 2:02:47 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> > What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens
> > with a sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one
> > better before.
>
> As I've explained many times before (many of those many times
> were even to you personally) I see a 9/8 4/3 5/3 chord as a
> Just Intonation chord.

You can consider all day and night what you like, that does
not make it so.

> I have defended this chord for well over a year now on this list

Nobody cares.

-Carl

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 2:15:58 AM

On 13 July 2010 11:02, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> > As I've explained many times before (many of those many times
> > were even to you personally) I see a 9/8 4/3 5/3 chord as a
> > Just Intonation chord.
>
> You can consider all day and night what you like, that does
> not make it so.

And you think you can determine what can be called a JI chord and what
not????
You may be the list moderator, but get lost! You've clearly lost your mind
here.
If I want to call 9/8 4/3 5/3 a JI chord I have every right to do so!

> I have defended this chord for well over a year now on this list
>
> Nobody cares.
>
> -Carl

I care!

Marcel

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 7:40:49 AM

Marcel> I have defended this chord for well over a year now on this list
Carl>Nobody cares.

I do. And just because I'm being being "controversial" by attempting to be
fair does not make me a troll, nor does it make Marcel one.
Carl, we know you don't care...but you are certainly not the entire list.
Please, let's give other people some room to voice their views without fear of
being smacked by you about it.
I have trouble believing we're arguing about a chord that fits in x/24
(pretty darn low, IMVHO) and still bothering to nit-pick how it's "not JI
enough". The whole world need not be force to either conform to strict JI or be
threatened about it....

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 7:36:01 AM

Marcel>"As I've explained many times before (many of those many times were even
to you personally).
I see a 9/8 4/3 5/3 chord as a Just Intonation chord. (the chord you just
called a "sour-ass non-JI chord")"

Well the 4/3 and 5/3 definitely form a JI dyad. The 9/8 and 4/3 can be
thought of as 27/24 and 32/24, making a 32/27 dyad...rather close to 13/11.
Meanwhile the 5/3 over 9/8 forms a dyad of 40/27. My issue with it is that the
outer two notes form a very sour dyad...even if you do not mind the 13/11 (which
really isn't that bad, IMVHO).

Marcel>"You're tying something like trying to get every single chord harmonic
and with pure fifths etc, and adaptive JI to achieve this."
I think pure fifths are a bit of a crutch. There are a good few ratios
different enough from pure fifths to sound unique but close enough to be used
for the same purpose. Yes I'm talking about dyads like 50/33, 22/15 and 13/9.
I'm obviously not saying pure fifths are bad, but the process of trying to
force almost every fifth to be pure of within a few cents of pure often seems to
have a nasty habit of knocking otherwise great scales and tunings out of
considerations in people's mind.

******************************

General comment: this board seems to have very little respect for ideas with
even the slightest bit of controversial (even if stated clearly as subjective or
as an alternative not a replacement) information. It has a habit of even calling
those who don't agree with your opinion dumb without explanation (which goes far
beyond saying "you don't have me convinced").

Who's to argue what's "JI" and what's not? I could understand if someone
said something very objective like "Marcel's chord has only one strict JI dyad"
but saying "this is sour and not JI" is not only vague but wrong. All JI
is...is explained on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_intonation as "any
musical tuning in which the frequencies of notes are related by ratios of small
whole numbers.". It doesn't say anything about how small a number in a fraction
has to be to make it JI or even if there's a strict definition for a JI chord.
And even the JI Diatonic scale is really an x/24 scale just like Marcel's said
above chord is an x/24 chord.

On the side, I've heard Carl's view a million times, which in that odd-limit
is the only real way to rate chord consonance.
And frankly I don't agree with it as the only way: I think critical band,
having many independently consonant dyads (even if the outer tones in the chord
form a sour dyad!), if there dyads are ordered from largest to smallest (IE
major vs. minor shaped)...all can work to make "even" a high odd-limit sour
sound non-sour.
And Marcel and I have a right to stand by our opinions without being blasted
for it. Now if Marcel was calling his chord "strict JI" he would be mis-stating
an objective fact...but that's not what he's doing.

**********************

Why not keep the objective objective and the subjective subjective? And if
you (as in anyone on this list) think what someone claims as subjective is
objectively wrong, shouldn't they be prepared to explain rather than just
blatantly call the person wrong?

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 11:37:52 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> And you think you can determine what can be called a JI chord
> and what not????

You're the one asserting the ability to define terms.

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 2:02:29 PM

Carl,
Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this all a response to
Carl>"What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens with a
sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one better before."

Find me the part where Marcel supposedly says his new way is the only way to
do JI and I'll believe you. Meanwhile I can easily site a few quotes where you
seem to be alluding to some cryptically limited form of "real JI" you think is
the only valid one...such as in your quote above.

The way I see it there is strict JI, extended JI, prime and odd limit
measuring of accuracy (though I agree odd limit is generally more
accurate)...and that's just a few of the widely accepted terms describing
"scales composed of low-numbered fractions from the harmonic series". And the
only way I could see Marcel's chord as not JI is if he was claiming it was part
of the rather small "strict JI" subset (which, of course, it isn't)...something
I haven't seen him claim this entire thread.

Marcel, correct me if I'm wrong but are you trying to imply that there are
ways to improve JI toward certain artistic goals...but not saying your way is
the superior way for every artistic goal?

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/13/2010 2:57:54 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> The way I see it there is strict JI, extended JI, prime and odd limit
> measuring of accuracy (though I agree odd limit is generally more
> accurate)...

That could be because prime limit isn't a way of measuring accuracy at all.

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 3:18:32 PM

Hi Michael,

Carl,
> Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this all a response to
> Carl>"What probably isn't at fault is JI, since the 1st mvmt opens with a
> sour-ass non-JI chord. Jeez Marcel, you had this one better before."
>
> Find me the part where Marcel supposedly says his new way is the only
> way to do JI and I'll believe you. Meanwhile I can easily site a few quotes
> where you seem to be alluding to some cryptically limited form of "real JI"
> you think is the only valid one...such as in your quote above.
>
> The way I see it there is strict JI, extended JI, prime and odd limit
> measuring of accuracy (though I agree odd limit is generally more
> accurate)...and that's just a few of the widely accepted terms describing
> "scales composed of low-numbered fractions from the harmonic series". And
> the only way I could see Marcel's chord as not JI is if he was claiming it
> was part of the rather small "strict JI" subset (which, of course, it
> isn't)...something I haven't seen him claim this entire thread.
>
>
> Marcel, correct me if I'm wrong but are you trying to imply that there
> are ways to improve JI toward certain artistic goals...but not saying your
> way is the superior way for every artistic goal?
>

Thanks for comming to the defence of what can be called JI!

But I have to admit. I am trying to find "the" way to tune "in tune".
And I admit I think there is only one way.
And I think I suceeded with this finally.

However. I do not force this view on others. I only hope that others will
agree with my ears and mind on things in time.

And, more importantly to this discussion.
I do not lay claim to the name Just Intonation, and say other can't call
their JI system JI.
I simply claim that what I'm doing can be called/ falls under Just
Intonation. And I differentate it from differing JI views by calling this
specific form of JI M-JI.

The thing that I could not stand from Carl, especially since he's the list
moderator, is that he claimed that I can't call what I'm doing JI.
I've even registered a domain name www.justintoned.com that's only a small
show of how strong I feel that I'm doing JI.

I'm perfectly fine offcourse with Carl thinking my tuning sounds like crap
and "out of tune" etc.
Just not with him beeing "the self proclaimed judge" on what can be called
JI.

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 4:10:11 PM

Oops..
I just remembered something.

Have to admit with some shame.
In the past, I've been very outspoken about adaptive-JI not beeing real JI,
especially to Carl.
That's basically the same thing I'm now beeing so offended about Carl
doing..

So I'm not acting really straight here I realise.
Well, not really straight may be an understatement.
So my apologies Carl about either beeing offended saying M-JI can't be
called JI, or for my saying adaptive-JI can't be called JI.
Not sure which one. Perhaps both would be best.

Marcel

> Thanks for comming to the defence of what can be called JI!
>
> But I have to admit. I am trying to find "the" way to tune "in tune".
> And I admit I think there is only one way.
> And I think I suceeded with this finally.
>
> However. I do not force this view on others. I only hope that others will
> agree with my ears and mind on things in time.
>
> And, more importantly to this discussion.
> I do not lay claim to the name Just Intonation, and say other can't call
> their JI system JI.
> I simply claim that what I'm doing can be called/ falls under Just
> Intonation. And I differentate it from differing JI views by calling this
> specific form of JI M-JI.
>
> The thing that I could not stand from Carl, especially since he's the list
> moderator, is that he claimed that I can't call what I'm doing JI.
> I've even registered a domain name www.justintoned.com that's only a small
> show of how strong I feel that I'm doing JI.
>
> I'm perfectly fine offcourse with Carl thinking my tuning sounds like crap
> and "out of tune" etc.
> Just not with him beeing "the self proclaimed judge" on what can be called
> JI.
>
> Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 4:25:17 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Just not with him beeing "the self proclaimed judge" on what
> can be called JI.

Just intonation is a term with an existing meaning. Why you
think I made it up is beyond me. A major triad with wolf fifth
is about as diametrically opposite to a "just chord" as you're
likely to get. So why call it that? To confuse people?

I think it's great you're experimenting with ways of retuning
music. I also think you're a jackass for making ridiculous
claims about your work using the terminology of a particular
field without bothering to learn the basics of that field.
And for coming up with a new final theory five times before
breakfast every Tuesday.

However it looks like you have a new pal! I am sure you and
Michael have a long and profitable partnership ahead. May I
also suggest you check out some theoretical physics mailing
lists? Don't bother to learn any physics first, because you'll
just get caught in the same dead ends as the physicists.
Remember, real advances are always made by lone geniuses with
a total disregard for prior work!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 4:38:22 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:
>
> Oops..
> I just remembered something.
>
> Have to admit with some shame.
> In the past, I've been very outspoken about adaptive-JI not beeing
> real JI,

You've got to distinguish between chords and scales.
It's not entirely clear what counts as a just scale, but
it is fairly well established what counts as a just chord.

Adaptive JI, generally speaking, is a method that makes
chords just and scales non-just.

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/13/2010 5:09:18 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> I think it's great you're experimenting with ways of retuning
> music.

I thought the use of a wolf set the tone. It may not be much like what Beethoven wanted, but it had a certain inner logic, plus heft and bite, and it was upfront about it. Dark and gloomy, but somehow real and logical. But I hope we can stop with the Equale and move on!

> Remember, real advances are always made by lone geniuses with
> a total disregard for prior work!
>

I'm rooting for this guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?src=mv

I would love it if this works out.
> -Carl
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 5:17:16 PM

Hi Carl,

You've got to distinguish between chords and scales.
> It's not entirely clear what counts as a just scale, but
> it is fairly well established what counts as a just chord.
>
> Adaptive JI, generally speaking, is a method that makes
> chords just and scales non-just.
>
> -Carl
>

Well agreed on most adaptive-JI, simply because it leads to comma tempered
scales indeed.
Though one could comma shift by small rational intervals perhaps, and then
the resulting scale could perhaps be called Just again.

But as far as what counts as a Just chord.
I must still disagree.

First of all, because it is mathematically impossible to do common practice
music in any limit (with the exclusion of a certain way of doing
Pythagorean) without comma shifts.
So to say all fifths must be 3/2, you would say that either common practice
music in Just Intonation comma shifts (no acceptable for me for many
reasons), or that common practice music can't be tuned Just.

Ah and you know there are many many more reasons I can give why 9/8 4/3 5/3
is a Just chord, but I don't feel like it because I wouldn't lead to
anything anyhow.
If you feel called, feel free to write a long email to why 9/8 4/3 5/3 isn't
a Just chord. Or give a musical example of common practice music tuned to
something of your choice and then I'll retune it too to my system and we'll
see what sounds better, or something like that.
But for now I'm fine to agree to disagree :)

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 5:36:41 PM

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

> I thought the use of a wolf set the tone. It may not be much
> like what Beethoven wanted, but it had a certain inner logic,
> plus heft and bite, and it was upfront about it. Dark and
> gloomy, but somehow real and logical. But I hope we can stop
> with the Equale and move on!

I wouldn't disagree.

> > Remember, real advances are always made by lone geniuses with
> > a total disregard for prior work!
>
> I'm rooting for this guy:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?src=mv

I've been following entropic gravity since last year, when
Johannes Koelman did a nice series of posts about it as rumors
surfaced that Verlinde was about to publish.

> I would love it if this works out.

It's hotly contested by Motl. Then again, he hotly contests
all new ideas. Then again, almost all new ideas are wrong
when it comes to high-energy physics. Anyway there are some
interesting threads on his blog, with Verlinde weighing in.

But don't rule out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horava_gravity
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything
when it comes to offbeat TOEs.

Incidentally, all of the above are constrained by this
brilliant bit of bargain-basement physics a friend of mine
did her PhD on:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0508204
It's shrunken Cavendish!

Please note I'm only a humble observer of this stuff, and
don't attempt to contribute. Incidentally, I'm indirectly
connected to Garrett Lisi, who despite being an "surfer dude"
has a PhD in physics and works his ass off (and for the
record I doubt his model is right).

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 5:47:18 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...> wrote:

> Well agreed on most adaptive-JI, simply because it leads to
> comma tempered scales indeed.

More than that, it leads to scales with irrational intervals.
Commas that have been equally divided. However if you had some
sort of philosophical problem with irrational numbers, as you
seem to have, you probably could divide the commas rationally.
However doing so would make you look like a numerology moron,
so I wouldn't recommend it.

> But as far as what counts as a Just chord.
> I must still disagree.
>
> First of all, because it is mathematically impossible to do
> common practice music in any limit (with the exclusion of a
> certain way of doing Pythagorean) without comma shifts.

It's impossible to do all (or most) common practice music.
However it's not impossible to do some common practice music,
including at least one of the drei equali!

> or that common practice music can't be tuned Just.

Right, because you've artificially, ignorantly, and stupidly
assumed something which is provably false (that all music
is "just") you've been driven to try to change the definition
of "just chord" that has stood for over 200 years. And when
Gene and I point this out, you become bombastic rather than
simply checking your assumptions.

-Carl

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

7/13/2010 5:56:40 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:

> But don't rule out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horava_gravity
> or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
> or
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything
> when it comes to offbeat TOEs.

Since this stuff is obviously so closely related to musical tuning, let me just add that Verlinde's paper is available online:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

It's astonishingly readable.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

7/13/2010 6:06:41 PM

Maybe something tuning-related awaits discovery in the publications of
my father some of which reside in the arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+yarman/0/1/0/all/0/1

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jul 14, 2010, at 3:56 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> But don't rule out
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horava_gravity
>> or
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity
>> or
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Exceptionally_simple_theory_of_everything
>> when it comes to offbeat TOEs.
>
> Since this stuff is obviously so closely related to musical tuning,
> let me just add that Verlinde's paper is available online:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
>
> It's astonishingly readable.
>
>

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/13/2010 6:10:59 PM

> More than that, it leads to scales with irrational intervals.
> Commas that have been equally divided. However if you had some
> sort of philosophical problem with irrational numbers, as you
> seem to have, you probably could divide the commas rationally.
> However doing so would make you look like a numerology moron,
> so I wouldn't recommend it.
>

Yeah I wrote it worng, I ment divided commas indeed.

>
>
> > But as far as what counts as a Just chord.
> > I must still disagree.
> >
> > First of all, because it is mathematically impossible to do
> > common practice music in any limit (with the exclusion of a
> > certain way of doing Pythagorean) without comma shifts.
>
> It's impossible to do all (or most) common practice music.
> However it's not impossible to do some common practice music,
> including at least one of the drei equali!
>

Yes, and I did just that with no2 before (posted one that is almost like
that about a week ago), though I strongly prefer the sound of the wolf "in
one key" new version.
The M-JI version sound like real music to me, and the melodies just move so
much clearer better and speak more etc.
And the chords have a language of their own in the M-JI version.
In the JI with only 3/2 fifths I did of no2 the whole piece sounded happy
and consonant etc.
In M-JI it sounds sad, emotional, strong with character. I love it much
more, and it sounds more in tune to me crazy as that may sound but it really
does. It's just "right" to my ears.

> > or that common practice music can't be tuned Just.
>
> Right, because you've artificially, ignorantly, and stupidly
> assumed something which is provably false (that all music
> is "just") you've been driven to try to change the definition
> of "just chord" that has stood for over 200 years. And when
> Gene and I point this out, you become bombastic rather than
> simply checking your assumptions.
>
> -Carl
>

I feel like I'm doing just the opposite.
That I prove that all music CAN be made Just.
And that the defenition of "Just" meaning that all fifths are 3/2 is the
thing that's wrong.
Just Intonation means "in tune" in the first place. That people have
attached the meaning of 3/2 fifths to that notion is not the main meaning of
the name Just. And yes, it's that "Just is only 3/2 fifths" superstition
that I'm attacking.

Marcel

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

7/13/2010 7:13:35 PM

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

> Since this stuff is obviously so closely related to musical
> tuning, let me just add that Verlinde's paper is available online:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
>
> It's astonishingly readable.

This guy actually published before Verlinde, though I haven't
studied it yet to know if/where he differs:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3165

-Carl

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 11:22:23 PM

Marcel>"But I have to admit. I am trying to find "the" way to tune "in tune".
And I admit I think there is only one way.
And I think I suceeded with this finally."
But you also said
>"I do not lay claim to the name Just Intonation, and say other can't call their
>JI system JI."

So you are saying other systems can be called JI systems, but yours is the
best? Seems like an overly fine line to run. Not that it's wrong (IE someone
can still say many car companies make sports cars, but Ferrari is the only 'true
sports car')...but that it's very easy to misinterpret statements like your
above.

In fact I have a certain scale system that puts all possible dyads within 7.5
cents of my favorite 3 to 11-limit ratios (with one 15 limit ratio of 22/15 but
mostly 7-limit or under) and mostly focuses on ratios from Ptolemy's system.
But even then I will admit the system assumes people like the dyadic ratios I
chose to purify among the best vs. other ratios.
And by ear I have managed to trick many people my system is "in tune" despite
deviating a lot from 12TET in many ways and is, mathematically, very JI. But
even then I won't lay claim to my system being a system that's more right across
the board...and only to the claim it works well for people who think the dyads
it purifies are good ones.

>"I simply claim that what I'm doing can be called/ falls under Just
Intonation."
Which it obviously does, it surely (in general if not all-the-time) focuses
on fairly small-numbered ratios of the harmonic series...even if Carl doesn't
think it's a "good" JI system.

>"I'm perfectly fine offcourse with Carl thinking my tuning sounds like crap and
>"out of tune" etc. Just not with him beeing "the self proclaimed judge" on what
>can be called JI."
Agreed, that practice sounds like censorship and pushing a subjective view as
not just his favored view but the only objective/non-idiot view IE his saying
"you can't get credit for a system being JI unless it contains the flavor of JI
ratios I favor".

Why can't we all just agree on the requirement from JI dyads being fairly low
numbered ratios in general (even, say, up to x/24 type fractions (IE NOT all
just "strict JI")...like some of the "less pure" JI diatonic scale ratios are),
leave it be, and enjoy it?!

_,_._,___

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 11:44:18 PM

>"Just intonation is a term with an existing meaning. Why you
think I made it up is beyond me. A major triad with wolf fifth
is about as diametrically opposite to a "just chord" as you're
likely to get. So why call it that? To confuse people?"

Much as I hate "wolf" fifths near 1.48, I'll even chime in that I think the
above view is non-objective censorship and not even across-the-board verifiable.
Igs (after I challenged him about the value of pure fifths) proved this to me.
On his album "map of the internal landscape" which is riddled with chords with
alternative "wolf" fifths cleverly positioned with other dyadic ratios which ARE
either JI or very close to it which often (NOT ALWAYS, but often) cancel out
most of the "impurity" of those fifths. And, apparently, it did the same for
many other people as well.

Carl, I dare you to listen to that album and still say your "wolf fifth =
always makes the chord it's in impure and non-JI-like-sounding" holds for all
chords.

>"Remember, real advances are always made by lone geniuses with a total disregard
>for prior work!"
This is total sarcasm on your point and just scumbag-ish in general on your
part.

Back in real life I have a father who is a physicist and a master at that.
Meanwhile I have solved problems on internship at NASA and another "engineering
firm" using methods even they called odd but very relevant to the problem at
hand...I even have a plaque as proof. Plus at my day job I consistently am
given projects to learn new or odd programming languages (IE Cocoa for the
I-Phone or the special flavor of Java for the Android or WPF/3D for .Net systems
under Firefox/IE plug-ins) that no one else at the company knows how to do and
often are rather poorly documented (or, in the case of Android, don't even
return error messages beside things like 'NULL' half the time).
I am very used to relying on, say, 50% prior concepts/documentation and 50%
intuition both on and off the job...I don't disregard prior work but don't use
it as a crutch either.

And of COURSE what I do (in my job and on the tuning list) has some basis in
prior knowledge, whether you agree with what slant I take on that prior
knowledge or not. Otherwise I'd be, for example, saying a pure 5th is bad or
that Strict JI is not more periodic than extended JI (both bluntly objective
facts).
'-------------------
Saying otherwise would be like saying perfect 5ths are the only 5ths that
should ever be considered legal in JI. And again, I'd say Igs's work is
excellent proof of one way to blast through that IMVHO rather limiting
stereotype. What's your point anyway Carl, to 'Puritanize' JI (because, quite
often, that's what it seems to be)?

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/14/2010 12:10:37 AM

Marcel>"And that the defenition of "Just" meaning that all fifths are 3/2 is the
thing that's wrong. Just Intonation means "in tune" in the first place. That
people have attached the meaning of 3/2 fifths to that notion is not the main
meaning of the name Just. And yes, it's that "Just is only 3/2 fifths"
superstition that I'm attacking."

You have. I have. Igs has. To some extent, Sethares has. Firstly it seems
"wolf fifths" can be made pure by combining them in chords with other dyads that
are pure or near pure, much as Igs has done.
Secondly, there are alternative 5ths like 22/15 and 50/33 that seem to need
very little support (maybe just one other/extra pure dyad in a chord to 'help
out') to sound quite resolved.

And yes of course nothing is going to sound as pure as a 3/2 fifth, but would
having, say, an "alternative 5th" which sounds more like a 7/6 or 5/4 so far as
consonance really be that terrible? Plus it adds variety and enables OTHER
intervals in a scale to often be either more accurate, more exotic (but still
managably consonant), or both.

_,_._,___

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/13/2010 11:56:51 PM

Carl>"You've got to distinguish between chords and scales.
It's not entirely clear what counts as a just scale, but
it is fairly well established what counts as a just chord."

You have lectured me about this as well. And (as I recall) your view is that
odd-limit is the only way to say "what counts as Just IE 4:5:6:7 is 'just' but
10:11:13:16 is not...because the second chord reaches beyond the 13th odd-limit.
Again I know such is a "Strict JI" mantra but, in not just my own hearing but
showing people my own works plus listening to things like Igs's work with things
like 16/11 or higher limit dyads I swear that kind of "Strict JI" mentality is
not the only way to make chords not just a few but MANY people can see as
beautiful.

>"Adaptive JI, generally speaking, is a method that makes chords just and scales
>non-just."
Right, and Marcel (if I have it right) seems to be apologizing for saying it's
not "just" before. I think it would help if we all admitted that any
not-completely-strict JI system is going to have some parts conform with strict
JI and not others. And that doesn't mean the person who made such scale is an
idiot who doesn't know how to do strict JI and someone with a non-consonant
scale or chords, but merely someone with different artistic goals balancing JI
differently.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

7/14/2010 12:43:24 AM

The definition of "Just Intonation" is a matter of convention, but it seems like there is confusion about what that convention is. The term "Rational Intonation" is far less controversial, because it simply describes any musical system based on integer frequency ratios (regardless of complexity).

I don't expect the microtonal community to ever agree on what really constitutes JI. There are always going to be people insisting that their 17-limit music is "Just", there are always going to be people insisting that nothing above the 6-odd-limit (or 5-prime-limit, or 7-limit, or 13-limit, etc) is "Just", and there are probably always going to be people arguing that the term "Just Intonation" is too vague to be meaningful and we should just drop it already. People are going to continue using the term, continue disagreeing on it, and continuing to piss off the rest of us who don't give a rat's arse about JI to begin with.

Deal with it.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Carl>"You've got to distinguish between chords and scales.
> It's not entirely clear what counts as a just scale, but
> it is fairly well established what counts as a just chord."
>
> You have lectured me about this as well. And (as I recall) your view is that
> odd-limit is the only way to say "what counts as Just IE 4:5:6:7 is 'just' but
> 10:11:13:16 is not...because the second chord reaches beyond the 13th odd-limit.
> Again I know such is a "Strict JI" mantra but, in not just my own hearing but
> showing people my own works plus listening to things like Igs's work with things
> like 16/11 or higher limit dyads I swear that kind of "Strict JI" mentality is
> not the only way to make chords not just a few but MANY people can see as
> beautiful.
>
> >"Adaptive JI, generally speaking, is a method that makes chords just and scales
> >non-just."
> Right, and Marcel (if I have it right) seems to be apologizing for saying it's
> not "just" before. I think it would help if we all admitted that any
> not-completely-strict JI system is going to have some parts conform with strict
> JI and not others. And that doesn't mean the person who made such scale is an
> idiot who doesn't know how to do strict JI and someone with a non-consonant
> scale or chords, but merely someone with different artistic goals balancing JI
> differently.
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

7/14/2010 2:06:44 AM

Igs>"I don't expect the microtonal community to ever agree on what really
constitutes JI. There are always going to be people insisting that their
17-limit music is "Just", there are always going to be people insisting that
nothing above the 6-odd-limit (or 5-prime-limit, or 7-limit, or 13-limit, etc)
is "Just","

Neither do I...but would it be too much to expect others on the list to at
least not call, say, the person who thinks a chord with a 17-odd-limit dyad is
still JI an ignorant idiot?

>"The term "Rational Intonation" is far less controversial, because it simply
>describes any musical system based on integer frequency ratios (regardless of
>complexity)."
Agreed. And, IMVHO, if people want clarity on just how much complexity a
chord in a scale has one (but surely not the only!) relatively easy way to do
this is to state
A) What the highest limit dyad is (a limit which may appear only once) is
B) the what the highest limit frequent dyad is.
...For example my latest scale has a highest frequent dyad odd-limit of 9 (IE
a good few possible 9-limit dyads) but an absolute highest at 15 (IE 22/15).
...and maybe also....
C) What the most common limit dyads are IE my scale has mostly 5 and 7 limit
dyads.

This, I figure, should give someone a fair idea what types of chords will
likely be possible and how much it meets their criteria for "odd-limit
consonance"...however high or low that may be.

>"People are going to continue using the term, continue disagreeing on it, and
>continuing to piss off the rest of us who don't give a rat's arse about JI to
>begin with."

I'll say this much: I respect and support thinking in terms of JI as a
leading option (though not the only one!) for explaining how micro-tonality
works...but I CAN NOT STAND the sort of Puritanism that seems to go on with
people who think things like "pure fifths are the only 'real' fifths" force
feeding those beliefs to others and claiming they "are ignorant of JI" just
based on such disagreements.

Yes, they continue to piss such people off...but I doubt it has to be that
way...it shouldn't be that hard to get such people to say "the fifth sounds far
too sour to me" (and give them fair room to defend why/how they are using said
weird fifth) instead of something like "you idiot...learn what a JI chord is for
crying out loud!"

-Michael

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/16/2010 12:56:56 PM

Ok here we go again :)

I think my latest tuning sounded good because it was in a 2-plane 5-limit
JI, and all melodies moved in allowable ways and it didn't mess with the
Schisma.
So both melodically and harmonically everything moved in a correct "Just"
way.
However, I'm having new insights into harmony and fundamental bass etc
thanks to the work I did.
And by my new insights I do not think my tuning does justice to the
fundamental bass and harmony of the pieces.
It was too easy this way anyhow :)
Now getting back to some really deep and difficult analysis :(
But I'm getting very pure results allready from my deeper understandings.

So.. no.. not ready yet with the Drei Equale no1 (or the others).
Sorry, really wish I was.

Will post yet again when I have the new version ready, which'll take a while
I'm guessing as it's worse than rocket science the way I'm doing it now :(

Marcel

🔗Marcel de Velde <m.develde@...>

7/17/2010 8:38:10 AM

Ok it took me a lot less time than I thought it would :)
I only had to figure out the rules of the fundamental bass in JI to finish
it.
I was allready on the right track besides that.

Here it is!
http://sites.google.com/site/develdenet/mp3/Drei_Equale_no1_%28M-JI_2010-07-17%29.mp3

MIDI files, score, Scala sequence file, and comparison with 12edo all at
www.develde.net

The piece starts in D minor, then goes to C major, then D minor again, C
major, D minor, C major, and ending in G major!

Btw this will be my last message for a while as Carl has once more decided
to put me on moderation.
I'm unsubscribing from this list till I'm off moderation.

Marcel
www.develde.net

9/19/2010 6:28:28 PM

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

> /tuning/files/JacquesDudon/Diff_co-1.zip
>

Thanks!

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

9/19/2010 6:43:00 PM

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

: /JacquesDudon/Diff_co-1.zip
> Uploaded by : jacques.dudon <fotosonix@...>
> Description : Differential Coherence - 1/1 2003

I can't find a precise definition which says "Scale S is differentially coherent if" or "Scale S is differentially coherent to degree X if" in here.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

9/19/2010 11:20:24 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /John Moriarty/Stretch.mp3
Uploaded by : jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>
Description : A demonstration comparing mapped timbres with unmapped timbres using a stretched octave of 1300 cents.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/John%20Moriarty/Stretch.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>

🔗Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...>

9/20/2010 5:51:29 AM

Gene wrote :

> : /JacquesDudon/Diff_co-1.zip
> > Uploaded by : jacques.dudon <fotosonix@...>
> > Description : Differential Coherence - 1/1 2003
>
> I can't find a precise definition which says "Scale S is > differentially coherent if" or "Scale S is differentially coherent > to degree X if" in here.

There isn't such receipe. Not that it would be impossible to precise, but :
1) I don't have the mathematical knowledge to do that. You could be the person that would be able to do it, if you wish !
2) Such a definition would help to quantify the degree of -c in a scale, but the musical interest of the differential coherence of a scale is elsewhere.
I will just take two scales in example with below their 1 & 2 degrees differentials :

6 : 7 : 8 : 9 : 10 : 11 : 12
1 1 1 1 1 1 ;
2 2 2 2 2 3 ;

and
64 76 80-81 96 101 120 128
12 4 1 15 5 19 8 ;
16 15 16 20 24 27 32 ;

The first one is maximally -c, since 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 belong to octaves of the scale - but the differentials are completely boring !
The second one may not be 100% -c, but the differentials sing in echo to the scale (they have 12, 15, 16, 19, 20) : that's what makes them more musical.
You can see also that commas may help to the coherence and diversity of the differentials : another factor that can complicate a general method of analysis.
- - - - - - - -
Jacques

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/8/2010 12:22:11 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /CameronBobro/Impossible.mp3
Uploaded by : misterbobro <misterbobro@...>
Description : 9:7 sung cold

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/CameronBobro/Impossible.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

misterbobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/18/2010 10:49:21 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /SteveMartin/tminmax2.png
Uploaded by : martinsj013 <martinsj@...>
Description : Triadic HE - graph of mins and maxs (Tenney 10K)

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/SteveMartin/tminmax2.png

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

martinsj013 <martinsj@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

10/21/2010 3:43:14 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /CameronBobro/SHE01mp3.mp3
Uploaded by : misterbobro <misterbobro@...>
Description : Demonstration of HE observations

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/CameronBobro/SHE01mp3.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

misterbobro <misterbobro@...>

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

10/21/2010 3:49:32 AM

I think the best general description of "low harmonic entropy", in terms of human perception, is probably "clarity". Which of these two intervals is more "clear" to you? The first, the second, both about the same? Any other comments on your perception?

Please don't "cheat" by measuring with machines, just describe what you hear. By the way these are obviously synthesized timbres, but they are not inharmonic timbres.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> This email message is a notification to let you know that
> a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
> group.
>
> File : /CameronBobro/SHE01mp3.mp3
> Uploaded by : misterbobro <misterbobro@...>
> Description : Demonstration of HE observations
>
> You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/CameronBobro/SHE01mp3.mp3
>
> To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
> http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles
>
> Regards,
>
> misterbobro <misterbobro@...>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

10/21/2010 6:51:25 AM

The first one sounds clearer to me, no question!
Note...the timbre used sounds rather a-typical.

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

10/21/2010 10:45:57 AM

Cameron wrote:
> I think the best general description of "low harmonic entropy",
> in terms of human perception, is probably "clarity". Which of
> these two intervals is more "clear" to you?

The first. -Carl

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/2/2010 8:20:39 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/PHITER_REMATCH.mp3
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : Short melody with PHI sections scale

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/PHITER_REMATCH.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

11/18/2010 12:30:20 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /John Moriarty/SwatheThickness.png
Uploaded by : jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>
Description : A chart relating the swathe thicknesses of different isomorphic layouts to different generator sizes. The Fokker layout has a thick swathe around the optimal meantone generators, providing large modulatory range around 700 cents. It quickly drops off below 520 cents and above 860 cents, however. The Fokker layout does not provide a useful playing surface for temperaments such as magic, hanson, or porcupine.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/John%20Moriarty/SwatheThickness.png

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

1/11/2011 7:26:52 PM

This is a bit of rather Setharesian DSP work I did in an effort to make my
own mp3-type format specifically for microtonal music and what I could find
about physiology of human hearing/critical band dissonance online as a hobbyist
programmer. I made software that processes sound files to fit various
models......

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMP.wav
Original sound file

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearHARMONICSONLY.WAV

Sound example: DSP alignment of sound file with all partials aligned to a
microtonal scale

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAV

Example sound sample...with dissonance compression/limiter (make part of the
sound with more dissonance less loud beyond a maximum dissonance level...the
critical band dissonance calculation is straight from Sethares' old Qbasic code)

In case any of you all are wondering...the file with alignment to microtonal
scale ONLY uses about 128 FFT bin partials to recreate the sound instead of
2048...so it could be used for sound compression to a downsampled wave file if
only I could massively pitch shift those partials down to the first 100 of 2048
bins of the fft and then downsample the result without lots of distortion ....

------------------------
Yep, these are what's left of my attempt from about 10 years ago to build my
own mp3-type format...built on top of existing phase vocoder code...

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

1/11/2011 7:31:59 PM

Correction, the first link was for the ORIGINAL SOUND FILE was wrong (yahoo
encoded it incorrectly)....it should be
1) /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMP.wav

Compare it to the dissonance-limiter applied version on
2)
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAV

...and you should be clearly able to hear the extra softness in the second
file...

and again, the third example is
3)
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearHARMONICSONLY.WAV

Sound example: DSP alignment of sound file with all partials aligned to a
microtonal scale

________________________________
From: Michael <djtrancendance@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, January 11, 2011 9:26:52 PM
Subject: [tuning] DSP alignment of entire song files (overtones and all) to
microtonal scales

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MBktTVZb4qWSe3oFH55uo_cqj6mnS62KhzgtBf7uyrebR23IoiKETtbvpKHpIfavUVsMwttYickvEvGxmgqBCLRLTJQqQXhZ6_Y/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAVsutraCOMP.wav

Original sound file

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearHARMONICSONLY.WAV

Sound example: DSP alignment of sound file with all partials aligned to a
microtonal scale

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAV

------------------------
Yep, these are what's left of my attempt from about 10 years ago to build my
own mp3-type format...built on top of existing phase vocoder code...

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

1/11/2011 7:39:49 PM

On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> This is a bit of rather Setharesian DSP work I did in an effort to make my own mp3-type format specifically for microtonal music and what I could find about physiology of human hearing/critical band dissonance online as a hobbyist programmer. I made software that processes sound files to fit various models......
>
> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMP.wav
> Original sound file

Nice composition, is this yours?

> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearHARMONICSONLY.WAV
> Sound example: DSP alignment of sound file with all partials aligned to a microtonal scale

^^ Whoa haha, this one is awesome! Good work!

> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAV
> Example sound sample...with dissonance compression/limiter (make part of the sound with more dissonance less loud beyond a maximum dissonance level...the critical band dissonance calculation is straight from Sethares' old Qbasic code)

I don't understand, what exactly is this doing here? Sounds a little
bit softer than the first one really.

> In case any of you all are wondering...the file with alignment to microtonal scale ONLY uses about 128 FFT bin partials to recreate the sound instead of 2048...so it could be used for sound compression to a downsampled wave file if only I could massively pitch shift those partials down to the first 100 of 2048 bins of the fft and then downsample the result without lots of distortion ....

Not sure what you mean by 128 FFT bin partials. You're only taking a
128-point FFT here?

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

1/12/2011 7:36:20 AM

Me>
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearHARMONICSONLY.WAV

> Sound example: DSP alignment of sound file with all partials aligned to a
>microtonal scale

MikeB>"^^ Whoa haha, this one is awesome! Good work!"
You're welcome...it's my best effort to do an "align all overtones to keys in
a scale" sort of thing. I hope some day someone will be able to write a more
accurate version of it which makes it so musicians no longer have to worry about
"aligning timbre and tuning" or picking special instruments for special
scales...that the program will do the entire thing for you without the
noticeable sound artifacts/"blurring" feel to it. Still even with the
artifacts...messing around with said feature (agreed) is admittedly quite fun.

MikeB>"Nice composition, is this yours?"
Yep...it's a short part of my song "Sutra" I posted on the MMM list.

Me>
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/sutraCOMPclearNOLOOSE.WAV

> Example sound sample...with dissonance compression/limiter (make part of the
>sound with more dissonance less loud beyond a maximum dissonance level...the
>critical band dissonance calculation is straight from Sethares' old Qbasic
>code)

MikeB>"I don't understand, what exactly is this doing here? Sounds a little bit
softer than the first one really."

Firstly...I specify a parameter for the maximum dissonance I allow for each
FFT block....

For each FFT block...I'm taking the amplitude of all partials. For each
partial I have a sub-loop which loops through each other partial each throw it
into Sethares' dyadic dissonance formula IE result =
Dissonance(FFT_array[root_partial], FFT_array[other_partial])
I am then taking a sum of the results of all possible dyadic dissonances IE
dissonancesum = dissonancesum + result and keeping track of the number of
comparisons IE comparison++.
After the partial comparing loop...I am taking the average IE average =
dissonancesum / comparisons

Lastly I
A) Check if the dissonance average for that block is higher than the maximum
dissonance parameter
B) If so, I loop through each amplitude value in the FFT array and scaling down
the amplitude IE amplitude * (maxdissonance / average).

This way the whole FFT block, in time, becomes significantly softer if/when it
goes over the maximum dissonance...but otherwise gets left alone. Hence parts
like the snare attack and the "click" of the bass drum kick, as well as certain
points where a note and drum hit at the same time and cause very nearby high
amplitude partials...become significantly softer while the "ambient" part of the
sound stays more-or-less the same.

Me> In case any of you all are wondering...the file with alignment to
microtonal scale ONLY uses about 100 FFT bin partials to recreate the sound
instead of 2048...so it could be used for sound compression to a downsampled
wave file if only I could massively pitch shift those partials down to the
first 100 of 2048 bins of the fft and then downsample the result without lots
of distortion ....

MikeB>"Not sure what you mean by 128 FFT bin partials. You're only taking a
128-point FFT here?"

No meaning...I meant shifting all amplitude/phase values of the loud IE
harmonic/overtone partials the first 120 parts of the FFT array and leaving the
remaining parts (121-2048) BLANK IE zeroed out. In other words...pushing all
the high frequency data into MUCH lower frequencies. Once everything is shifted
as such, I can perform the inverse FFT to get a wave file with only low
frequencies...and then downsample/shrink the wave file without losing any (high)
frequency info....that's how the compression system works.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/13/2011 1:36:19 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/I hate twenty two over 15 scale.tun
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : MOS scale using a 13/9 "alternative fifth"

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/I%20hate%20twenty%20two%20over%2015%20scale.tun

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/13/2011 1:37:08 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/I hate twenth two over 15 LOWER LIMIT.scl
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : MOS scale using a 13/9 "alternative fifth"

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/I%20hate%20twenth%20two%20over%2015%20LOWER%20LIMIT.scl

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

2/13/2011 1:38:54 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/I hate twenty two over fifteen MELODIC EXAMPLE.mp3
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : Melodic example of 13/9 alternative fifth MOS scale

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/I%20hate%20twenty%20two%20over%20fifteen%20MELODIC%20EXAMPLE.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

3/1/2011 12:51:38 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/getchordJI.html
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : HTML web page finds the nearest JI chord when given up to seven frequencies. Lets you specify the highest limit you'll allow (higher limit allowed = close match to original tones)

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/getchordJI.html

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

3/1/2011 1:01:28 PM

>"You can access this file at the URL:

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/getchordJI.html "

This web page finds nearest JI chord given up to seven notes.

   It allows you to specify the highest numerator you will allow for the chord (higher limit = greater accuracy toward original chord).
    I will soon release a new version with an option that allows inputting notes as cents and not just decimal values.
-----------------
     I hope this proves a useful tool or even a basis for an Adaptive JI algorithm that allows for customizable levels so far as limits and, roughly, how much commatic drift can happen on the average.
   Since the algorithm is recursive (NOT based on embedded FOR loops)...it can, in theory, accommodate huge chords (IE 100+ note chords)...though those would take an awfully long time to process and suggestions optimization techniques are welcome. :-)

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

3/1/2011 1:07:53 PM

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"You can access this file at the URL:
> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/getchordJI.html "

Very nice! A little more work on this and you could have yet another
variant of HE to play around with.

-Mike

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

3/1/2011 2:12:22 PM

It would be great if you could input notes as cents values also. Then I would definitely get some use out of it.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"You can access this file at the URL:
>
> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/getchordJI.html "
>
>
>
>
>     This web page finds nearest JI chord given up to seven notes.
>
>    It allows you to specify the highest numerator you will allow for the chord (higher limit = greater accuracy toward original chord).
>     I will soon release a new version with an option that allows inputting notes as cents and not just decimal values.
> -----------------
>      I hope this proves a useful tool or even a basis for an Adaptive JI algorithm that allows for customizable levels so far as limits and, roughly, how much commatic drift can happen on the average.
>    Since the algorithm is recursive (NOT based on embedded FOR loops)...it can, in theory, accommodate huge chords (IE 100+ note chords)...though those would take an awfully long time to process and suggestions optimization techniques are welcome. :-)
>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/4/2011 10:34:43 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/FREE TENNEY.mp3
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : In 34TET: short melody with NO pure fifth and very few low-limit intervals: purposefully made to test consonance in systems NOT covered by Tenney Height and/or Harmonic Entropy.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/FREE%20TENNEY.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 10:39:53 AM

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/FREE%20TENNEY.mp3

This is a short melody done in 34TET. I used 34TET due to it's abundance of alternative-to-5th intervals such as 13/9, 11/7, and 22/15. The result is a melody with no pure fifths and tons of intervals well above the "non-just border" Tenney Height of 70.

Does this sound stable to you? If so, hopefully it will give some incentive for the list to start thinking about what does and does not work far as ratios with a Tenney Height of over 70 so far as their roles in consonance.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/4/2011 10:58:51 AM

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/FREE%20TENNEY.mp3
>
> This is a short melody done in 34TET. I used 34TET due to it's abundance of alternative-to-5th intervals such as 13/9, 11/7, and 22/15. The result is a melody with no pure fifths and tons of intervals well above the "non-just border" Tenney Height of 70.

Why do you call those "alternative-to-5th" intervals?

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 11:14:13 AM

>"Why do you call those "alternative-to-5th" intervals?"

Boy are you being stubborn. I used to call them simply "alternative 5ths" meaning notes over 10/7 and under or equal to 11/7 that are not near 3/2.
But then you said "they aren't fifths because only the perfect fifth is a real fifth and alternative fifth indirectly implies they would be "proper fifths"...so you suggested I should call them "alternatives-to-5ths".

Anyhow, apparently you disagree with you last suggestion of using the term "alternatives to fifths". :-S So now...what's your suggested term for these intervals? :-D

Simply put...the different intervals are chained together to form the scale. And since the intervals chained are not near "proper" fifths and alternate in the chain (IE there is not just one, say, flattened fifth used repeatedly as a generator), I can't say it's generated the same way meantone is.
In the case of this scale, the scale is roughly formed by 22/15 * 11/7 * 13/9 * 22/15 * 13/9 * 22/15 * 14/9...then reduced to the octave.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/4/2011 12:39:33 PM

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

> Description : In 34TET: short melody with NO pure fifth and very few low-limit intervals: purposefully made to test consonance in systems NOT covered by Tenney Height and/or Harmonic Entropy.

So you took an excellent 5-limit tuning and used it, avoided fifths. How in the world does this show anything whatever about TH or HE?

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/4/2011 12:41:12 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/FREE%20TENNEY.mp3
>
> This is a short melody done in 34TET. I used 34TET due to it's abundance of alternative-to-5th intervals such as 13/9, 11/7, and 22/15. The result is a melody with no pure fifths and tons of intervals well above the "non-just border" Tenney Height of 70.
>
> Does this sound stable to you?

I have no idea whatever what that even means. You've composed much better IMHO.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/4/2011 12:49:27 PM

By the way, the 13/9 is a cent flat, the 11/7 is six cents flat, and the 22/15 is 7.5 cents sharp, which is outside of O'Sullivan's bounds, both old and new.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 12:51:17 PM

Me> Description : In 34TET: short melody with NO pure fifth and very
few low-limit intervals: purposefully made to test consonance in systems
NOT covered by Tenney Height and/or Harmonic Entropy.

Gene>"So you took an excellent 5-limit tuning and used it, avoided fifths. How
in the world does this show anything whatever about TH or HE?"

The tuning may be ABLE to be used as excellent 5-limit...the scale I used for the entire example has a whole lot of 11-limit (prime or odd) and virtually all 7-or-higher odd limit. No matter how you slice in...the scale (not tuning) I used is loaded with dyads with HE rating over 70 and virtually none of the lowest TH ratios (3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 5/3, 6/5) occur.

If the example sounds stable...it brings into question the idea of using scales containing a majority of ratios of "un-justly" high IE (over 70) Tenney Height to create stable-sounding music.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 12:53:03 PM

Me>> "Does this sound stable to you? "

Gene>"I have no idea whatever what that even means. You've composed much better IMHO."

Stable as in resolved, not tense.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 12:57:40 PM

gene>"By the way, the 13/9 is a cent flat, the 11/7 is six cents flat, and
the 22/15 is 7.5 cents sharp, which is outside of O'Sullivan's bounds,
both old and new."

Fair enough, it seems to point out flaws in both systems (Tenney Height and John's system). My take: 22/15 has an asymmetrical "field of attraction", so error is more tolerable sharp of 22/15. I don't get how 13/9 or 11/7 disproves Jon's theory, however, as the are both under his 6.7 or so cent error "barrier" off perfect.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/4/2011 1:07:24 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> In the case of this scale, the scale is roughly formed by 22/15 * 11/7 * 13/9 * 22/15 * 13/9 * 22/15 * 14/9...then reduced to the octave.
>

in order for that to close at the octave, you need to temper out the comma |0 -9 -3 0 4 2>. That does not suggest 34 to me, but 87, 111, 198 etc. would work.

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/4/2011 1:15:35 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me>> "Does this sound stable to you? "
>
> Gene>"I have no idea whatever what that even means. You've composed much better IMHO."
>
> Stable as in resolved, not tense.

No. It stays at a consistent, fairly high dissonance level and does not resolve.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/4/2011 1:23:13 PM

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Why do you call those "alternative-to-5th" intervals?"
>
> Boy are you being stubborn. I used to call them simply "alternative 5ths" meaning notes over 10/7 and under or equal to 11/7 that are not near 3/2.
> But then you said "they aren't fifths because only the perfect fifth is a real fifth and alternative fifth indirectly implies they would be "proper fifths"...so you suggested I should call them "alternatives-to-5ths".

All I'm saying is that the fact that you hear them as being "similar"
to "a fifth" is significant. Is that not significant?

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 1:27:00 PM

MikeB>"All I'm saying is that the fact that you hear them as being "similar" to "a fifth" is significant. Is that not significant?"

Of course it is... I, for example, would say I hear something like 14/9 as an odd type of fifth...but certainly not a fourth. Hence my use of the term "alternatives to a fifth"...I understood what I thought you meant by using that term.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/4/2011 1:35:43 PM

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> MikeB>"All I'm saying is that the fact that you hear them as being "similar" to "a fifth" is significant. Is that not significant?"
>
> Of course it is... I, for example, would say I hear something like 14/9 as an odd type of fifth...but certainly not a fourth. Hence my use of the term "alternatives to a fifth"...I understood what I thought you meant by using that term.

Now, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, it would be because all
of these intervals you keep listing, with the exception of maybe a
few, are perhaps very loosely within the field of attraction of "a
fifth?"

Although if you actually hear 14/9 as a very wide perfect fifth, I may
be barking up the wrong tree.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/4/2011 1:52:39 PM

MikeB>"Now, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, it would be because all

of these intervals you keep listing, with the exception of maybe a

few, are perhaps very loosely within the field of attraction of "a

fifth?"

Put it this way...I could just as easily say the field of attraction is around 50/33 or even 22/15. Simply put, I think all of the above intervals have their own fields of attraction. I could just as easily say if 22/15 is the "centered fifth"...the range would be from about 10/7 to 14/9 instead of 13/9 to 11/7.

So why do I use the 3/2 fifth as the center, then? Because it's the most common one for people to actually hear/recognize...not because the others are somehow less valid. You seem very eager to force parts of my observations to fit harmonic entropy by taking them out of context...rather than taking them for what they are.

The one thing I can say in favor of 3/2 is that the range of acceptable error AKA indirectly the "field of attraction" to my ears seems significantly wider than, say, that of 22/15. A 22/15 that's 7 cents flat sounds very unlike a 22/15...which a 3/2 7 cents flat sounds virtually no different to me than a pure 3/2.

>"Although if you actually hear 14/9 as a very wide perfect fifth, I may be barking up the wrong tree."

I don't see it as being the equivalent of "suddenly in one range it's one color...then it very quickly fades to the next", but rather as an evolving range of colors. For example, 14/9 may be "light purple" while 13/9 may be "medium blue"...and the "fifthness" refers to the common element of "blue"...although, say, between 14/9 and 5/3 the common element may be closer to red.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/5/2011 12:41:34 AM

On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Me> Description : In 34TET: short melody with NO pure fifth and very few low-limit intervals: purposefully made to test consonance in systems NOT covered by Tenney Height and/or Harmonic Entropy.
>
> Gene>"So you took an excellent 5-limit tuning and used it, avoided fifths. How in the world does this show anything whatever about TH or HE?"
>
> The tuning may be ABLE to be used as excellent 5-limit...the scale I used for the entire example has a whole lot of 11-limit (prime or odd) and virtually all 7-or-higher odd limit. No matter how you slice in...the scale (not tuning) I used is loaded with dyads with HE rating over 70 and virtually none of the lowest TH ratios (3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 5/3, 6/5) occur.
>
> If the example sounds stable...it brings into question the idea of using scales containing a majority of ratios of "un-justly" high IE (over 70) Tenney Height to create stable-sounding music.

Eh, not a fan. The chords sound sour and dissonant as hell. I can get
used to it if I try.

-Mike

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/5/2011 1:10:52 PM

MikeB>"Eh, not a fan. The chords sound sour and dissonant as hell. I can get

used to it if I try."

Well, counter statement, is there any tuning full of 11-limit intervals with very few low-limit intervals that, you do like? Or...is there a tuning extensively not using 3/2 but, instead, other intervals between 10/7 and 11/7 that you like?

It seems the common pattern in this list is most people only consider 3/2 a good "fifth" and anything else, including Middle Eastern-style fifths, are "not made for harmony"...so we end up with a ton of meantone-like scales and large variations only of very simple intervals (IE 14 cent errors off 5/4, for example)...just like in 12TET. It seems like a sort of paradox of "we're microtonal musicians, but we try to be as un-microtonal as possible". :-D

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/5/2011 3:29:13 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> MikeB>"Eh, not a fan. The chords sound sour and dissonant as hell. I can get
>
> used to it if I try."
>
> Well, counter statement, is there any tuning full of 11-limit intervals with very few low-limit intervals that, you do like?

Jake was using cantonpenta lately, which is loaded with alternative thirds rather than alternative fifths. It sounded so nice I suspect you ignored it, figuring it couldn't count as microtonal, which it most certainly is.

> Or...is there a tuning extensively not using 3/2 but, instead, other intervals between 10/7 and 11/7 that you like?

Why does it need to be between? Why not try 10/7 as an alternative to the perfect fifth? You could use 1-5/4-10/7 and 1-8/7-10/7 for starters, and then temper out both 540/539 and 275/273 (garibaldi temperament would be good for that) and use 1-6/5-10/7, 1-7/6-10/7, 1-13/11-10/7 and 1-11/9-10/7. Admittedly garibaldi tends to make you want to use fifths, and other temperaments are possible. But you don't need to use a MOS anyway.

> It seems the common pattern in this list is most people only consider 3/2 a good "fifth" and anything else, including Middle Eastern-style fifths, are "not made for harmony"...so we end up with a ton of meantone-like scales and large variations only of very simple intervals (IE 14 cent errors off 5/4, for example)...just like in 12TET. It seems like a sort of paradox of "we're microtonal musicians, but we try to be as un-microtonal as possible". :-D
>

So is cantonpenta microtonal enough for you?

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/5/2011 7:19:31 PM

Gene>"Jake was using cantonpenta lately, which is loaded with alternative
thirds rather than alternative fifths. It sounded so nice I suspect you
ignored it, figuring it couldn't count as microtonal, which it most
certainly is."

Ok, firstly...by alternative thirds do you mean 11/9, 9/7, or something else? Secondly, what was the piece Jake wrote in question? I honestly simply did not see/get the link to it...I certainly didn't purposefully ignore it.

>"Why does it need to be between? Why not try 10/7 as an alternative to the perfect fifth?"

10/7 could work...but what scales would you recommend generated by just 10/7 and not 10/7 with no perfect fifths? My challenge is to produce a scale with no perfect fifths and at least 7 notes but no more than 10 notes that is strictly proper...the reason I'm avoiding perfect fifths as much as possible is the obvious counter-argument "well...it works because it has a few 'usable' perfect fifths".

>"You could use 1-5/4-10/7 and 1-8/7-10/7 for starters, and then temper
out both 540/539 and 275/273 (garibaldi temperament would be good for
that) "
Hmm...but it sounds like Garbaldi also has near-perfect fifths...kind of killing the point.

>"So is cantonpenta microtonal enough for you? "

Actually looking at it on http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/cantonpenta...yes, it does. I see a near 13/9 and a near 22/15, plus an 11/7...oddly enough, all the "alternative fifths" I used in my original scale (though perhaps chained in a more desirable order?)

. Now all I have to do is fine a subset/scale of it that works for me that doesn't have any (or at least many) near-perfect fifths...and I realize there are something north of 5 near perfect fifths to avoid. Any recommendations? Note...I don't care if the scale is an MOS or not...so long as it is strictly proper.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

4/5/2011 7:28:12 PM

Michael, what does strictly proper mean ? That it has pure ratios and
not a temperament?

Thanks,

Chris

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 10:19 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>

>
> . Now all I have to do is fine a subset/scale of it that works for me that doesn't have any (or at least many) near-perfect fifths...and I realize there are something north of 5 near perfect fifths to avoid. Any recommendations? Note...I don't care if the scale is an MOS or not...so long as it is strictly proper.
>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

4/5/2011 8:04:52 PM

> > Gene>"Jake was using cantonpenta lately, which is loaded with
> > alternative thirds rather than alternative fifths. [snip]
>
> Ok, firstly...by alternative thirds do you mean 11/9, 9/7, or
> something else?

Cantonpenta has 13/11, 288-cent minor thirds and a 14/11, 416-cent major third, the two of which add up to a fifth. (All ratios are from the untempered Canton scale instead of cantonpenta.) I was using a minor mode, so the 13/11 is primary effect, but of course the 14/11 is there in the triad.

There's also this quirky 26/21, 368-cent flattish major third when you build a triad on the 3rd or 8th step of the scale (i.e., if C is the root then it's in the D major and G major chords), and I used that a lot, too. It sounds *very* flat to me when used in a typical I-IV-V (major) progression, but in the minor mode's i-iv-V I thought it was very nice -- a little softer than what I'm used to, less insistent but still a little more "up" than the minor v chord would have been.

> Secondly, what was the piece Jake wrote in question?

My 52 seconds worth of bragging rights for having dabbled in microtonality, "Cantonese Bagatelle (Ohio, That Is)", can be found here:

http://www.freivald.org/~jake/documents/Cantonese%20Bagatelle%20(Ohio,%20That%20Is).mp3
http://www.freivald.org/~jake/documents/cantonese.pdf

I also put these together, if anyone's interested in hearing chords from this scale:

http://www.freivald.org/~jake/documents/canton-chords.mp3
http://www.freivald.org/~jake/documents/canton-chords.pdf

You bandwidth-constrained folks should note that canton-chords.mp3 is 15 MB.

The chords are whatever Scala could find where the ratios were within +/- 5-cent tolerance. Between the PDF and the score, you get a good idea of what sounds are available in Cantonpenta. Lots of good stuff there, much more than I used in the bagatelle.

Regards,
Jake

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/5/2011 8:05:30 PM

>"Michael, what does strictly proper mean ? That it has pure ratios and

not a temperament?"

Gene can correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm quite unsure of the difference between 'proper' and 'strictly proper'. However, as I understand it...the idea is that if you move a fixed number of steps in a scale regardless of which key you start from, that movement represents the same interval class.

For example move 4 keys up to get a type of third, 6 to get a type of fourth, etc. Now if you, say, can move 4 keys from one root to get a third but 4 keys from another root to get a fourth...the scale is no longer strictly proper.

This has obvious implications to musical playability, it makes the scale have an equal-temperament-like predictability to them.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/5/2011 8:18:27 PM

Sounds really good. Seems to trip between typical triads and use of odd intervals, snapping back to the familiar just as you begin to lose track of things...

The 14/11 seems promising...not far from the "tonal gravity" of 9/7.

>"There's also this quirky 26/21, 368-cent flattish major third when you

build a triad on the 3rd or 8th step of the scale"

Very neat...you fooled me by saying you used this a lot because I'd never guess (most of the thirds sound fairly normal to me and 26/21 is very near neither 11/9 nor 5/4.

>"I was using a minor mode, so the 13/11 is primary effect,"

A bit of a shocker...as I think 13/11 sounds terrible by itself but I liked your piece. What triads, specifically, did you use 13/11 in (IE 11:13:16)? I'm admittedly not adept at reading microtonal scores or finding microtonal chords by ear.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/5/2011 8:34:43 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MichaelSheiman/canton2.mp3
Uploaded by : djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>
Description : Redo of Free Tenney example on Canton Tuning

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/canton2.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

djtrancendance <djtrancendance@...>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/5/2011 8:45:30 PM

> > Gene>"Jake was using cantonpenta lately, which is loaded with

> > alternative thirds rather than alternative fifths. [snip]

/tuning/files/MichaelSheiman/canton2.mp3

Ok, fine. :-P Redid a new piece (sound-test/excerpt...NOT a full piece!) using the Canton tuning. My chosen subset/scale of the Cantonese tuning includes the following notes:
208.11808
416.23616
575.64576
783.76384
991.88192
1071.58672
1200.00000

This 7-tone scale has only one pure fifth between 1071 and 575 cents...the rest include evil specimens of "alternative fifths" including around 11/7, 22/15, and 13/9. Again, the goal is to create a sense of stability/relaxation without using the perfect fifth and, indirectly, without using many ratios of low Tenney Height.

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

4/5/2011 9:33:20 PM

> Sounds really good.

Thanks.

> Seems to trip between typical triads and use of odd intervals,
> snapping back to the familiar just as you begin to lose track
> of things...

It depends on what you mean by "typical triads". They're all tempered 22:26:33 (the i, iv, and v, using the 13/11) or 34:42:51 (the II and V, using the 26/21) chords. There aren't any other triads in the piece.

I didn't really pay attention to the ratios while I was composing, mind you. I think the 13/11 doesn't sound so far off from a 12-EDO minor third, so it seems familiar; I'm guessing that it's the 34:42:51 that sounds like "odd intervals".

> The 14/11 seems promising...not far from the "tonal gravity" of 9/7.

I seem not to be a fan of sharp thirds, so I don't anticipate composing a lot of stuff with the 14/11 major triads. To each his own, though.

> > "There's also this quirky 26/21, 368-cent flattish major third
> > when you build a triad on the 3rd or 8th step of the scale"
>
> Very neat...you fooled me by saying you used this a lot because
> I'd never guess (most of the thirds sound fairly normal to me and
> 26/21 is very near neither 11/9 nor 5/4.

Yeah, it sounds normal-ish here, but do a Gsus4 --> G major (i.e., Vsus4 --> V in the key of C). I think even a deaf muezzin would look at you and say, "What the hell was *that*?"

I think it works in this context because the melody first goes C-Eb-G-Ab, or 0-288-704-784 cents (the last step is only 80 cents) and then, the next time around, goes C-Eb-G-F#, or 0-288-704-576 cents (the last step is 128 cents). Even though the Ab and the F# are both a single scale step away from the G, the F# is a lot farther away in absolute terms, which makes it feel a little more diatonic or "natural" or something. Yeah, it's really flat, but the close Ab above makes you *want* something flat below.

As I was discussing with Igs a while back, it seems to me that the individual dyads matter somewhat less than the scale structure and compositional context. That certainly seems to be the case here.

I think. I mean, I'm not really a composer, and I'm certainly not a microtonal composer, and I'm just making up the explanations as I go. But the point of the composition was to experiment, and what I say above is what it *feels* like the result of the experiment was. Not scientific, but plausible at least.

> I think 13/11 sounds terrible by itself but I liked your piece.

If you listen to the overly-repetitious-please-make-it-stop-droning piano part, the first beat of the measure is usually the root+3rd of the chord; you're hearing a lot of 13/11 by itself (and some 26/21 by itself).

Interesting, no? That's part of the reason this scale interested me: Gene threw out this weird subgroup (2.3.11/7.13/7 -- though I had to pester him about what that meant, and why it was weird, and why he chose the intervals he did, and so on) and yet the scale sounded good. Go figure.

Regards,
Jake

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/5/2011 10:20:25 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> 10/7 could work...but what scales would you recommend generated by just 10/7 and not 10/7 with no perfect fifths?

The temperament "tridec" in the chromatic pairs Xenwiki catalog comes close:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Tridec8
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Tridec13
http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Tridec

Of course, it's far from proper but I'm afraid the 10/7 generator idea sticks you with that. Officially, the temperament has no fifths but you wil probably find something you want to call by that name.

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

4/5/2011 10:24:10 PM

On 6 April 2011 09:20, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> The temperament "tridec" in the chromatic pairs Xenwiki catalog comes close:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Tridec8
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Tridec13
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Chromatic+pairs#Tridec

Is every heading a temperament name? I'm not keeping up with them.
They aren't in the other page I'm scraping.

Graham

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/5/2011 10:26:17 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> This 7-tone scale has only one pure fifth between 1071 and 575 cents...the rest include evil specimens of "alternative fifths" including around 11/7, 22/15, and 13/9.

Much better!

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/5/2011 10:33:19 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> Is every heading a temperament name? I'm not keeping up with them.
> They aren't in the other page I'm scraping.

Yep. The most useful page to be scraping is "Optimal patent val" I think, then "Proposed names for rank 2 temperaments".

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/6/2011 6:16:09 AM

Jake>"As I was discussing with Igs a while back, it seems to me that the individual dyads matter somewhat less than the scale structure and compositional context. That certainly seems to be the case here."

You're right, the 13/11 is very close to the minor third...so it's easy to argue, even through numeric comparison of dyads, they are similar.

>"I'm guessing that it's the 34:42:51 that sounds like "odd intervals"."
Well IMVHO 34:42:51 partly cheats because it uses a perfect fifth. :-D However compositional context still seems to matter a lot here because the dyads 42:34 and 51:42 are quite "weak".

>"As I was discussing with Igs a while back, it seems to me that the individual dyads matter somewhat less than the scale structure and compositional context. That certainly seems to be the case here."

What amazes me is that 34:42:51 chord. That's one case where many of the dyads are so out of whack it's very hard to say a "field of attraction" from Harmonic Entropy saved them. Heck, even with my own interpretation of Harmonic Entropy, which gives some weight to a "field of attraction" around 11/9 and a more considerably generous one to 9/7 than HE..I STILL can't explain it. Fascinating stuff..

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/6/2011 6:17:57 AM

>"Of course, it's far from proper but I'm afraid the 10/7 generator idea sticks you with that. "

Figures. That's why I was trying to use more than just 10/7.......I found a 7-tone subset of Cantonese for my example which seems pretty close to proper, though.

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/6/2011 6:26:33 AM

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:05 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >"Michael, what does strictly proper mean ? That it has pure ratios and
> not a temperament?"
>
> Gene can correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm quite unsure of the difference between 'proper' and 'strictly proper'. However, as I understand it...the idea is that if you move a fixed number of steps in a scale regardless of which key you start from, that movement represents the same interval class.
>
> For example move 4 keys up to get a type of third, 6 to get a type of fourth, etc. Now if you, say, can move 4 keys from one root to get a third but 4 keys from another root to get a fourth...the scale is no longer strictly proper.
>
> This has obvious implications to musical playability, it makes the scale have an equal-temperament-like predictability to them.

No... not quite. The idea is that 5/4 doesn't necessarily have to be a
"third" at all - in diminished[8], for example, it's a fourth. A
strictly proper scale is one where all of the seconds are smaller than
all of the thirds, all of the thirds are smaller than all of the
fourths, etc. A proper scale that is not strictly proper is one the
largest second may be EQUAL to the smallest third, or the largest
third may be EQUAL to the smallest fourth, but not larger.

For example: the harmonic minor scale (C D Eb F G Ab B C), in 12-tet,
is proper, because the Ab-B is an augmented second, which is the same
size as a minor third. The harmonic minor scale in 31-tet is strictly
proper, because the Ab-B augmented second works out to be closer to
7/6, whereas the minor thirds work out to be 6/5, so the augmented
second is smaller than the minor third. The harmonic minor scale in
17-tet is improper, because the Ab-B augmented second ends up being
closer to 11/9, and the minor thirds are closer to 13/11, so you have
a second that is larger than a third.

The concept is, the fact that you call 5/4 or 6/5 or 11/9 a type of
"third" is because you're used to that interval subtending three scale
steps in the diatonic scale. If you got used to another scale in which
5/4 subtended 4 steps, you'd start thinking of it as a "fourth." Of
course, you'd probably still call it a "major third" just because of
convention, but you'd intuitively become aware of that there are two
notes between the root and the 5/4, not just one.

A good rule of thumb for MOS scales is that if L>2s, the scale is
improper; if L=2s, it's proper, and if L<2s, it's strictly proper.
This only applies if there is more than one "s" sized interval in the
scale, however, so porcupine[8] in 22-tet is proper although L=3s.

You should also know that propriety can be defined without recourse to
ratios at all - I just said that above to simplify.

-Mike

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

4/6/2011 7:00:26 AM

> No... not quite. The idea is that 5/4 doesn't necessarily have to be a
> "third" at all - in diminished[8], for example, it's a fourth. A
> strictly proper scale is one where all of the seconds are smaller than
> all of the thirds, all of the thirds are smaller than all of the
> fourths, etc. A proper scale that is not strictly proper is one the
> largest second may be EQUAL to the smallest third, or the largest
> third may be EQUAL to the smallest fourth, but not larger.
>
>

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

4/6/2011 7:00:53 AM

ok, that makes sense - thanks!!

>> No... not quite. The idea is that 5/4 doesn't necessarily have to be a
>> "third" at all - in diminished[8], for example, it's a fourth. A
>> strictly proper scale is one where all of the seconds are smaller than
>> all of the thirds, all of the thirds are smaller than all of the
>> fourths, etc. A proper scale that is not strictly proper is one the
>> largest second may be EQUAL to the smallest third, or the largest
>> third may be EQUAL to the smallest fourth, but not larger.
>>
>>
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

4/6/2011 10:55:37 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Jake>"As I was discussing with Igs a while back, it seems to me that the individual dyads matter somewhat less than the scale structure and compositional context. That certainly seems to be the case here."
>
> You're right, the 13/11 is very close to the minor third...so it's easy to argue, even through numeric comparison of dyads, they are similar.

13/11 is 66/65, or 26.432 cents, away from 6/5. It is 10.790 cents flat of 300 cents, which is a lot closer, but still not "very close".

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

4/6/2011 3:13:47 PM

Gene>"13/11 is 66/65, or 26.432 cents, away from 6/5. It is 10.790 cents flat
of 300 cents, which is a lot closer, but still not "very close"."

Right, but the >>12TET<< minor third I am comparing it to is flat of 6/5.

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

4/7/2011 1:21:08 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> A good rule of thumb for MOS scales is that if L>2s, the scale is
> improper; if L=2s, it's proper, and if L<2s, it's strictly proper.
> This only applies if there is more than one "s" sized interval in the
> scale, however, so porcupine[8] in 22-tet is proper although L=3s.

There's also the case of fractional-octave period scales, like Blackwood[10] or Diminished[8] or Augmented[6] (etc.), where you can get the large step as large as you want compared to the small step without incurring impropriety.

-Igs

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

4/7/2011 7:08:49 PM

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 4:21 PM, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
> > A good rule of thumb for MOS scales is that if L>2s, the scale is
> > improper; if L=2s, it's proper, and if L<2s, it's strictly proper.
> > This only applies if there is more than one "s" sized interval in the
> > scale, however, so porcupine[8] in 22-tet is proper although L=3s.
>
> There's also the case of fractional-octave period scales, like Blackwood[10] or Diminished[8] or Augmented[6] (etc.), where you can get the large step as large as you want compared to the small step without incurring impropriety.

Right, because within each period there's still only one small step. I
guess "only one small step per period" is the precise way to put it.
Something like Augmented[9] can be improper.

-Mike

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/10/2011 8:44:31 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/pp_pump_675.mp3
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>
Description : A 676/675 comma pump using 13-limit tetrads

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/pp_pump_675.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

4/11/2011 11:41:56 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/3125_2916_temp_q32.ogg
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>
Description : A chord progression in the 3125/2916 temperament, quantized to 32-EDO

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/3125_2916_temp_q32.ogg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

5/19/2011 11:31:11 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /DanNielsen/FifePlay.zip
Uploaded by : funwithedo19 <nielsed@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/DanNielsen/FifePlay.zip

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

funwithedo19 <nielsed@...>

🔗Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...>

5/19/2011 11:46:15 PM

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /DanNielsen/FifePlay.zip
Uploaded by : funwithedo19 <nielsed@...>

________________

This is a new test version of the (Windows) utility I mentioned earlier. For
more information please see the Readme in DanNielsen/.

Changes made since last release (not that anyone should care about all these
details):
* Loads Scala .scl formats now
* Downloads and plays audio files (mp3, ogg, wav)
* Old FMod -> new FMod Ex library
* ASCII -> unicode

Special care must still be taken, but it's getting pretty robust at handling
text. Next I'm hoping to add the ability to generate scales given enough
information.

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

5/20/2011 12:28:24 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /IgliashonJones/Magic Bullets.mp3
Uploaded by : cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>
Description : 19-EDO Magic-10 Pop Song!

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/IgliashonJones/Magic%20Bullets.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/2/2011 10:33:06 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /JohnMoriarty/SoundTheSame.mp3
Uploaded by : jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>
Description : A chord progression in Hanson to show similar perception in moderate and extreme tunings. Generators: 315, 319, 323, 327

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/JohnMoriarty/SoundTheSame.mp3

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

jlmoriart <JlMoriart@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/18/2011 11:38:55 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/amity2unicorn.rar
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>
Description : An example of retuning amity to unicorn, pitch sequences included as Scala files

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/amity2unicorn.rar

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>

🔗petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>

6/18/2011 12:08:01 PM

Hi there.
I haven't been following your discussion for a few days but I'll now give an example of what I said earlier.
A possible counterpart to amity could be the much less known temperament called unicorn. That's because if you use a generator of 200/243 in amity rather than 243/200, then a major triad in amity uses generator numbers "0, 5, 13" while a major triad in unicorn uses generator numbers "-13, -8, 0", which is actually the same thing raised by 13. Therefore, some chord progressions can even come out the same when switching between unicorn and amity (only the bass tones differ) while others will change. The MIDI files and Scala files contained in this archive let you verify it for yourselves. See here:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/amity2unicorn.rar
Petr

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

6/19/2011 1:59:01 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/Fifive_pump.mid
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>
Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/PetrParizek/Fifive_pump.mid

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/11/2011 12:52:19 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /JacquesDudon/Tsaharuk.jpg
Uploaded by : jacques.dudon <fotosonix@...>
Description : Parametric horagram of Tsaharuk temperament

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/JacquesDudon/Tsaharuk.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

jacques.dudon <fotosonix@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/15/2011 12:24:17 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /TRUE OCTAVE # 1 of 3.xls
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : This file is one of 3 files that I am adding. It gives information regarding the true value of the octave which is slightly higher than 2. File # 3 gives the keyboard frequencies that correspond to a true octave tuning.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/TRUE%20OCTAVE%20%23%201%20of%203.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/15/2011 12:38:48 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /TRUE OCTAVE # 3 of 3.doc
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : This file details the 88 piano tone frequencies when they are tuned to the true octave.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/TRUE%20OCTAVE%20%23%203%20of%203.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/17/2011 11:44:17 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /TRUE OCTAVE # 2 A.shs
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : This file gives the major and minor thirds of the True Octave Scale detailed in files #1 and # 3.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/TRUE%20OCTAVE%20%23%202%20A.shs

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗Tim Reeves <reevest360@...>

7/17/2011 12:21:21 PM

my computer can't open the file...if anyone derives a safe copy please post
thanks
tim

--- On Sun, 7/17/11, tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [tuning] New file uploaded to tuning
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 6:44 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /TRUE OCTAVE # 2 A.shs
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : This file gives the major and minor thirds of the True Octave Scale detailed in files #1 and # 3.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/TRUE%20OCTAVE%20%23%202%20A.shs

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

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

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/15/2011 12:31:54 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /TRUE OCTAVE # 2 of 3.shs
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : It is the second file of three that completes the information the data given in file TRUE OCTAVE # 1 of 3.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/TRUE%20OCTAVE%20%23%202%20of%203.shs

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/22/2011 3:43:08 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /DERIVING THE TRUE OCTAVE.xls
Uploaded by : piaguiscale <piagui@...>
Description : This file describes the procedure used to determine the real value of the musical scale and explains why this true octave is really the needed one.

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/DERIVING%20THE%20TRUE%20OCTAVE.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

piaguiscale <piagui@...>

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/24/2011 5:52:01 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /MatsOljare/FLASK.MID
Uploaded by : oljare <oljare@...>
Description : D�r Flaskkurbitsen Blommar - 19tet, unretuned

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/MatsOljare/FLASK.MID

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

oljare <oljare@...>

🔗Mats Ã–ljare <oljare@...>

7/24/2011 7:34:45 PM

Okay, i guess that was kind of unnecessary, since that MIDI file isn't meant to be listened to, as it's unretuned. For some reason, i can't figure out how to get the recent Scala version to produce a MIDI file, only realtime MIDI output, so you have to do with a audio version. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34t6Mu9Cnl4

🔗tuning@yahoogroups.com

7/25/2011 3:31:38 AM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /PetrParizek/pp_spyth_tetrads.mid
Uploaded by : petrparizek2000 <petrparizek2000@...>
Description : A tempered 32768/32805 pump using tetrads and pentads

1/1/2013 5:14:36 PM

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the tuning
group.

File : /Andrew Meronek/Ratio To MIDI Pitch Bend Calculator.ods
Uploaded by : bigAndrewM <bigandrewm@...>
Description : JI Ratio to MIDI Pitch Bend Calculator

You can access this file at the URL:
/tuning/files/Andrew%20Meronek/Ratio%20To%20MIDI%20Pitch%20Bend%20Calculator.ods

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html
Regards,

bigAndrewM <bigandrewm@...>