web page on pitch

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html

should help explain about the helix and even address Dave Keenan's
objection.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html
>
> should help explain about the helix and even address Dave Keenan's
> objection.

Thanks very much for that Paul. You'd better read it yourself. It
says the helix model should be dropped and, on another page, agrees
that there is weak affinity at the fifth.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

Dave Keenan wrote,

>> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html
>
>> should help explain about the helix and even address Dave Keenan's
>> objection.

>Thanks very much for that Paul. You'd better read it yourself. It
>says the helix model should be dropped and, on another page, agrees
>that there is weak affinity at the fifth.

I know David. I agree that there is weak affinity at the fifth, which is how
I justify using tetrachordal scales with more notes per octave (but not per
tetrachord) than Miller's limit.

Those Terhardt pages are kind of contradictory because they say that octave
equivalence is observed in infants but then try to chalk up octave- and
fifth-equivalence to acculturization. I know that by own sense of pitch is
inextricably octave-repeating, and I'd venture to guess that the same is
true for every musician on the planet. Even cultures with the most
inharmonic instruments recognize octave-equivalence, though the timbres
often distort the octave up to 50¢ in either direction.