JI, ET's, and special

I too like a multiplicity of tuning systems, and am, in fact, working
hard on my first pieces in pure tunings, after years of only et's. I
like the change, and I am learning lots of interesting things. There is,
however, a difference between the notes of the harmonic series, and
equal temperaments...what it means, we can (and probably will) debate
till the cows get back. The natural harmonics are part of nature...they
have absolutely nothing to do with the race of human beings...they were
here when we got here, and are an integral part of the Universal
structure. Equal temperaments ARE man made, and thus are NOT a natural
phenomenon...the vibrations produced are going to vary from the
naturally occuring intervals of the harmonic series, and this means
something...what, I'll spend the rest of this life studying...Hstick

At 11:57 PM 10/20/00 -0600, you wrote:
> The natural harmonics are part of nature...they
>have absolutely nothing to do with the race of human beings...they were
>here when we got here, and are an integral part of the Universal
>structure.
True, but to my mind at least, there's a subtle current running through
comparisons between such things as the harmonic series vs. one of our
contrived temperaments that suggests that the contrived things are somehow
divorced from the un-manmade. The harmonic series will be present only when
straight-line tubes and strings are present. Other elastic natural thingies
such as shells and fairly flat pieces of rock that present pitched material
to our ears have some pretty irrational arrangements of tones, to say nuttn,
of course, of rocks and other irregular objects.
And, when I slow down crickets, there are also some odd overtones, which one
would expect considering how the sound is made.
We are a contrivance of Nature and anything we contrive will still be pretty
well-connected with the rest of Nature. In fact, the thing I find most
appealing about electronic musical instruments is that they can make sounds
that are a lot closer to what I hear outside of manmade nature than our
previous mechanisms.
Equal temperaments ARE man made, and thus are NOT a natural
>phenomenon...the
I agree that before humans came along, such a thing didn't exist, but thanks
to us, it does _now and is just as much a part of the natural world as other
sonic phenomena.
vibrations produced are going to vary from the
>naturally occuring intervals of the harmonic series, and this means
>something...what, I'll spend the rest of this life studying...Hstick
>My feelings: well, maybe it means something, but not very much beyond the
infinite variability of Nature. The meaning is not in the device or process
so much as it is in the products that affect our whole beings, not just our
brain alone.
You would write music that's just as powerful and full of joie de vivre,
regardless of the underlying pitch construct. It just so happens that you
explore manhy of those and have the musical sensibility to render their
musical properties apparent.
Rock on
Jay
>
>You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
>email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
>
>
>

Hi, Neil!

Neil Haverstick wrote:

> There is,
> however, a difference between the notes of the harmonic series, and
> equal temperaments...what it means, we can (and probably will) debate
> till the cows get back.

Well, then, let's get started, shall we? :-)

> The natural harmonics are part of nature...they
> have absolutely nothing to do with the race of human beings

Hmm... you might be jumping to a conclusion there. The relationship between humanity and (the
rest of) nature is a subject for a philosophy or theology list. But at least privately
consider carefully the validity of that premise.

> Equal temperaments ARE man made, and thus are NOT a natural
> phenomenon...the vibrations produced are going to vary from the
> naturally occuring intervals of the harmonic series, and this means
> something...what, I'll spend the rest of this life studying...Hstick

I'll stick my neck out and offer a brief summary. Essentially it seems to mean that JI tunings
are better suited for simple vertical sonorities (harmony), while ETs are better suited for
horizontal (melodic) motion.

--
David J. Finnamore
Nashville, TN, USA
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David J. Finnamore [mailto:daeron@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 9:27 AM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: JI, ET's, and special
>
>
> Hi, Neil!
>
> Neil Haverstick wrote:
>
> > There is,
> > however, a difference between the notes of the harmonic series, and
> > equal temperaments...what it means, we can (and probably will) debate
> > till the cows get back.
>
> Well, then, let's get started, shall we? :-)
>
>
> > The natural harmonics are part of nature...they
> > have absolutely nothing to do with the race of human beings
>
> Hmm... you might be jumping to a conclusion there. The
> relationship between humanity and (the
> rest of) nature is a subject for a philosophy or theology list.
> But at least privately
> consider carefully the validity of that premise.
>
>
> > Equal temperaments ARE man made, and thus are NOT a natural
> > phenomenon...the vibrations produced are going to vary from the
> > naturally occuring intervals of the harmonic series, and this means
> > something...what, I'll spend the rest of this life studying...Hstick
>
> I'll stick my neck out and offer a brief summary. Essentially it
> seems to mean that JI tunings
> are better suited for simple vertical sonorities (harmony), while
> ETs are better suited for
> horizontal (melodic) motion.
>

OK ... let me jump in here.

1. As the mathematician Kronecker said, "God created the integers. All the
rest is the work of Man."

2. The so-called "harmonic series" -- frequencies of overtones or partials
being integer multiples of a fundamental -- comes from the solution of a
*specific* one-dimensional partial differential equation that governs
(uniform) vibrating strings of negligible thickness and open and closed air
columns. So, in that sense, the harmonic series is "natural". Other
perfectly "natural" musical instruments, such as vibrating bars and
windchimes, have different partial differential equations and different
"harmonic series" where the overtones are *not* integer multiples of the
fundamental!

3. Let's move on (slightly). I believe *nearly all musical perception is
learned* -- stored in the neural networks within the brain. The fundamental
laws of physics -- partial differential equations of vibrating things, sum
and difference tones of sine waves, etc. -- impose few limitations on us,
and electronic musical instruments impose even fewer limitations. To the
large number of us who grew up hearing essentially only 12-TET and Western
tonal classical music and tonal popular music, JI and meantone are going to
"sound weird", as is gamelan, Indian raga and Bill Sethares' xentonal
electronic pieces. One can learn to appreciate other scales, other tunings,
other timbres, and so on ... the neural networks are flexible enough in most
individuals to do this.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

David and Neil!
I will argue that the harmonic series is hard wired into our minds from the beginning, making
the perception of vowels effortless. Thus apart of our own nature. That difference tones are
generated in the mind even when each pitch is placed separately via headphones into each ear says
something about how our minds are hard wired. (this is normally when Paul come in and we both play
our "tapes" of our arguments;-) ).

"David J. Finnamore" wrote

> I'll stick my neck out and offer a brief summary. Essentially it seems to mean that JI tunings
> are better suited for simple vertical sonorities (harmony), while ETs are better suited for
> horizontal (melodic) motion.

As we have pointed out the opposite appears to be the case if one looks at musics around the
world. The ones that still use JI are melodic, Temperments- harmonic.

>
>
> --
> David J. Finnamore
> Nashville, TN, USA
> http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/f/dfin/index.html

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

M. Ed!
Still the "harmonics" of most objects with a strong pitch can be seen as a "deviation" of
the harmonic series. You might be able to correct me on this but few natural sounds create
overtones where the result is an ET or even equally spaced generators! The stronger the
deviation from the harmonic series, the less clear our minds are as to exactly what we are
hearing (which can be musically useful, i admit).
I believe this is a problem with noise in music in general, our inability to perceive
differences as easily. In other words the Just noticeable Difference JND is much greater with
the noise or increases the more we venture from the harmonic series!

"M. Edward Borasky" wrote:

> OK ... let me jump in here.
>
> 1. As the mathematician Kronecker said, "God created the integers. All the
> rest is the work of Man."
>
> 2. The so-called "harmonic series" -- frequencies of overtones or partials
> being integer multiples of a fundamental -- comes from the solution of a
> *specific* one-dimensional partial differential equation that governs
> (uniform) vibrating strings of negligible thickness and open and closed air
> columns. So, in that sense, the harmonic series is "natural". Other
> perfectly "natural" musical instruments, such as vibrating bars and
> windchimes, have different partial differential equations and different
> "harmonic series" where the overtones are *not* integer multiples of the
> fundamental!
>
> 3. Let's move on (slightly). I believe *nearly all musical perception is
> learned* -- stored in the neural networks within the brain. The fundamental
> laws of physics -- partial differential equations of vibrating things, sum
> and difference tones of sine waves, etc. -- impose few limitations on us,
> and electronic musical instruments impose even fewer limitations. To the
> large number of us who grew up hearing essentially only 12-TET and Western
> tonal classical music and tonal popular music, JI and meantone are going to
> "sound weird", as is gamelan, Indian raga and Bill Sethares' xentonal
> electronic pieces. One can learn to appreciate other scales, other tunings,
> other timbres, and so on ... the neural networks are flexible enough in most
> individuals to do this.
> --
> M. Edward Borasky
> mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
> http://www.borasky-research.com
>

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kraig Grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:02 AM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: JI, ET's, and special
>
>
> David and Neil!
> I will argue that the harmonic series is hard wired into our
> minds from the beginning, making
> the perception of vowels effortless.

Well, now, the human voice is a complex instrument :-). Basically, it's a
continuously-adjustable pitch generator feeding into a
continuously-adjustable set of resonant filters. Perception of vowels
primarily involves differentiating between a small number of these
resonances, which are called "formants" in the trade. This involves not so
much the "harmonic series" as it does pitch detection.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "David J. Finnamore" <daeron@b...> wrote:

>Essentially it seems to mean that JI tunings
> are better suited for simple vertical sonorities (harmony), while
ETs are better suited for
> horizontal (melodic) motion.

Hmm . . . Pythagorean is JI and yet it is terrific for melody . . .
lots of non-ET non-JI
systems, especially MOS scales and the like, are perfect for melody .
. . ET is only
important if you want to minimize the total number of pitches you
want to use for your
music.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> David and Neil!
> I will argue that the harmonic series is hard wired into our
minds from the beginning, making
> the perception of vowels effortless.

I agree. It also allows us to do such things as distinguish voices in
a crowd, for example.

> Thus apart of our own nature. That difference tones are
> generated in the mind even when each pitch is placed separately via
headphones into each ear says
> something about how our minds are hard wired. (this is normally
when Paul come in and we both play
> our "tapes" of our arguments;-) ).

OK -- here it is again. Difference tones are produced _in each ear_.
The virtual pitches
that are produced in the brain are _not_ difference tones, for
example if 420 and 620 Hz go
to one ear, and 520 and 720 Hz go to the other ear, the virtual
pitch will _not_ be a
difference tone of 100 Hz but will be about 104 Hz, the best-fit
fundamental.

>The ones that still use JI are melodic, Temperments- harmonic.

Most of the ascriptions of JI to melodic cultures are a Western
invention, largely the fault
of Helmholtz. Where JI can be said to occur, such as in Indian
santoor music and the big
otonal acapella singing in certain parts of Africa, it is _harmony_
that is the driving force.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> M. Ed!
> Still the "harmonics" of most objects with a strong pitch can
be seen as a "deviation" of
> the harmonic series. You might be able to correct me on this but
few natural sounds create
> overtones where the result is an ET or even equally spaced
generators! The stronger the
> deviation from the harmonic series, the less clear our minds are as
to exactly what we are
> hearing (which can be musically useful, i admit).
> I believe this is a problem with noise in music in general, our
inability to perceive
> differences as easily. In other words the Just noticeable
Difference JND is much greater with
> the noise or increases the more we venture from the harmonic series!

All true -- and remember that _any_ periodic sound, such as a
_sustained_ (rather than
decaying) musical sound as from a voice, brass, reed, or bowed string
instrument,
_must_ have EXACTLY integer partials.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:

> Well, now, the human voice is a complex instrument :-). Basically,
it's a
> continuously-adjustable pitch generator feeding into a
> continuously-adjustable set of resonant filters. Perception of
vowels
> primarily involves differentiating between a small number of these
> resonances, which are called "formants" in the trade. This involves
not so
> much the "harmonic series" as it does pitch detection.

If the partials were to deviate much from a harmonic series, the
voice is no longer
perceived as a single voice with a particular vowel sound but instead
perceived as a
bunch of disconnected pitches. You can be sure that identifying the
vowel will be most
difficult under such circumstances (I wonder if someone can make a
sound-file
experiment out of this).

There is,
|however, a difference between the notes of the harmonic series, and
|equal temperaments...what it means, we can (and probably will) debate
|till the cows get back. The natural harmonics are part of nature...they
|have absolutely nothing to do with the race of human beings...they were
|here when we got here, and are an integral part of the Universal
|structure.

Nothing to do with the human race ? I beg to differ ! Aren't humans also a
natural part of nature ? also amazingly ordered , balanced and structured ?
I would say that the harmonic series and the human body,mind , intellect
and ego have a tremendous amount to do with each other. In fact , is it not
true that every particle of matter is in a state of vibration and therefore
has its
own frequency ? The field of vibration we understand to be 'sound' is
approx.
16 to 32, 768 cycles per second. Our bodies have 'ears' and their associated
mechanisms to experience that vibration as sound. Light , and colour , is
also
a vibration but its frequency is more in the region of 562, 949, 953, 421 ,
321
cycles a second. Each colour has its own frequency , just like pitch.
So , in one sense , you could say that colour (or light ) is simply a sound
that is
so high that you need a different baodily organ to perceive it (the ear is
only
designed for certain frequencies) , or , alternatively , sound is simply
light of
such a low frequency that it cannot be perceived by the eyes .Perfumes ,
Xrays,
Heat , Electricity ....etc. These are all things that have their own
vibrational
frequency ranges.Research into sound and music therapy has shown that each
organ
in your body has its own vibrational frequency. So ..... if your liver is
crook , it
basically means it is 'out of harmony' , both with itself and with its
relationships
with the rest of your body. Your body is in dissonance. If you are to apply
the
right vibation to the affected area , then through sympathetic vibration ,
health may be restored.
That's the theory anyway ! so..... I strongly disagree that humans as a race
and as individuals
are in any way detached from the harmonic series , as we are ourselves
vibrations.

Equal temperaments ARE man made, and thus are NOT a natural
|phenomenon...the vibrations produced are going to vary from the
|naturally occuring intervals of the harmonic series, and this means
|something...what, I'll spend the rest of this life studying...Hstick

I agree ! I suspect that ET will be found to be a contributing factor
to the degradation of health , and general harmonic existence amongst
fellow man.
|
|
|
|You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
|email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
| tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
| tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
| tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
| tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
| tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
|
|
|

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Erlich [mailto:PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 1:30 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: JI, ET's, and special
>
>
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:
>
> > Well, now, the human voice is a complex instrument :-). Basically,
> it's a
> > continuously-adjustable pitch generator feeding into a
> > continuously-adjustable set of resonant filters. Perception of
> vowels
> > primarily involves differentiating between a small number of these
> > resonances, which are called "formants" in the trade. This involves
> not so
> > much the "harmonic series" as it does pitch detection.
>
> If the partials were to deviate much from a harmonic series, the
> voice is no longer
> perceived as a single voice with a particular vowel sound but instead
> perceived as a
> bunch of disconnected pitches. You can be sure that identifying the
> vowel will be most
> difficult under such circumstances (I wonder if someone can make a
> sound-file
> experiment out of this).

Hmmm ... one of the examples on line for MPEG-4 Structured Audio is a set of
"sung" vowels. I have that on my machine; if you can describe the
experiment, I can probably code it up fairly easily. I'll put the "original"
up on the eGroups site and let you folks hear it for yourselves.

--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

In message 14843 Paul Erlich wrote:

<< ET is only important if you want to minimize the total
number of pitches you want to use for your music. >>

That induce me to ask little questions. On what principle could we stand
the notion "importance to minimize" about pitches or about intervalsor
about other elements? Is it equally important to minimize pitches and to
minimize a set of configuring intervals used in privilegied axes
(horizontal, vertical, oblique") of a given music? What actual constraints
may reinforce the importance to minimize pitches?

-Pierre

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Pierre Lamothe <plamothe@a...> wrote:
>
> In message 14843 Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> << ET is only important if you want to minimize the total
> number of pitches you want to use for your music. >>
>
> That induce me to ask little questions. On what principle could we
stand
> the notion "importance to minimize" about pitches or about
intervalsor

What is intervalsor?

> about other elements? Is it equally important to minimize pitches
and to
> minimize a set of configuring intervals used in privilegied axes
> (horizontal, vertical, oblique") of a given music? What actual
constraints
> may reinforce the importance to minimize pitches?

The desire to minimize the number of pitches uses arises from (1)
practical instrumental
considerations and (2) the desire to have a closed system, with many
possible pathways
through the lattice leading back to the starting point.

For Western music from the late 15th century through the mid-18th
century, an infinite
(or even 31-tone) meantone system is musically quite appropriate,
though practical
considerations often meant that the number of pitches available would
be 12 or only a
few more, thus limiting the freedom of some composers when writing
instrumental
works. With later composers, from the early 19th century onward, the
12-tone closure
was assumed and is essential to preserve in realizing the
compositional logic of the
music. In either case, a modern realization is free to make
melodically inaudible
adjustments to improve the consonance of some chords, but a strict JI
approach fails for
either period.

I hope I've helped answer your question -- I had trouble
understanding it.

I wrote:

> For Western music from the late 15th century through the mid-18th
> century, an infinite
> (or even 31-tone) meantone system is musically quite appropriate,
> though practical
> considerations often meant that the number of pitches available
would
> be 12 or only a
> few more, thus limiting the freedom of some composers when writing
> instrumental
> works.

Let me elaborate. Though this approach does not imply ET or a closed
system, it does
assume a particular equivalency in the lattice. The 81:80 is assumed
as a unison vector --
moving up three fifths is _always_ equivalent to moving up a major
sixth. Any tuning
system that does not observe this equivalency will fail to convey the
logic that was
assumed by the composer.

> With later composers, from the early 19th century onward, the
> 12-tone closure
> was assumed and is essential to preserve in realizing the
> compositional logic of the
> music.

In particular, one additional unison vector is assumed. Whether it's
the diaschisma
(2048:2025) or the diesis (128:125) is of no consequence -- the same
12-tone closed
system arises, in a system that is either a "well-temperament" or
12-tone equal
temperament. The reason the system _does_ close at this stage is that
a 5-limit JI
system is infinite in two dimensions; one unison vector reduces this
infinitude to a one-
dimensional one; and a second unison vector eliminates the infinitude
altogether.

> > If the partials were to deviate much from a harmonic series, the
> > voice is no longer
> > perceived as a single voice with a particular vowel sound but instead
> > perceived as a
> > bunch of disconnected pitches. You can be sure that identifying the
> > vowel will be most
> > difficult under such circumstances (I wonder if someone can make a
> > sound-file
> > experiment out of this).
>
> Hmmm ... one of the examples on line for MPEG-4 Structured Audio
> is a set of
> "sung" vowels. I have that on my machine; if you can describe the
> experiment, I can probably code it up fairly easily. I'll put the
> "original"
> up on the eGroups site and let you folks hear it for yourselves.

OK the "vowels" stuff is on the eGroups site. Sorry about the length (800K);
once everyone who is interested has had a chance to download it, I'll pull
the "wav" file out and re-post it. What's in the "zip" archive is a "wav"
file called "output.wav", which is the synthesized sound of some sung
vowels. There are two voices and there is some vibrato. Also in the archive
are two text files, "vowels.saol" and "vowels.sasl". If you're familiar with
CSound, the ".saol" corresponds to the orchestra (.orc) and the ".sasl"
corresponds to the score (.sco). These files are tiny and human readable. In
SAOL (Structured Audio Orchestra Language, pronounced like "sail") the
comment convention is from "//" to the end of the line. Here is the SAOL
file with some extra comments I've added that describe what is going on, so
you can see where one might tweak the code.

//==========================================================================
=====================
// vowels.saol
// A simple singing synthesizer
// Originally written by Eric Scheirer
// Modified by John Lazzaro
// Song length: 10 seconds
//
// Changes:
//
// [1] "Fast" option uses table to replace buzz()
// [2] Variable tcount counts number of kcycles for a
// vowel transition -- previous implementation was prone
// to roundoff.
// [3] K-rate cpsmidi() opcode was part of a-rate statement in
// original, a strict decoder would not produce desired sound.
//
// This instrument should work as is in pre-FDIS saolc.

global {
srate 44100 ; // the sample rate in Hertz -- CD rate.
krate 400 ; // the control rate -- control signals are decoded at this
rate
outchannels 1 ;
}

instr voice1 ( startmidi , startvwl , startamp ) {
asig vibfreq , a , reson1 , reson2 , out ;
ksig kinit , f1 , f2 , curf1 , curf2 , ct , oldf1 , oldf2, tcount ;
imports ksig vowel, amp , pitch , cpspitch, stop ;
table vib ( harm , 128 , 1 ) ;
table buzztable(buzz, 128, 0, 1, 0.8);
ivar trans, ratio, fast ;

// i-rate -- i-rate code is executed only once, when the "instrument" is
initialized.
// uninitialized variables are set to zero coming in, so "first call
flags" can be coded

fast = 0; // 1 chooses table implementation
trans = 0.100 ; // transition time between vowels, in seconds
ratio = 40; // number of kcycles for a transition (16000/400)

// k-rate -- k-rate code is executed at the control rate (krate) = 400
Hertz in this code

// here's that "first call flag" :-)
if ( ! kinit ) { // initializes pitch/loudness/format at note launch
kinit = 1 ;
vowel = startvwl ;
amp = startamp ;
pitch = startmidi ;
}
if ( stop ) {
turnoff ;
}
cpspitch = cpsmidi ( pitch ); // here's where the pitch is determined.
"cpsmidi" is a built-in
// function that takes a MIDI note number pitch and converts it to cycles
per second. So the
// incoming pitches from the score must be specified in MIDI note numbers.
If one wanted to
// play with tunings, one could re-compute this number using either
arithmetic expressions or
// table lookup. Or, one could change the input from MIDI note numbers to
raw frequencies in Hz
// and do the pitch changes in the score.

// calculate end-points of vowel formats
// that should probably say "formants"

if ( vowel == 1 ) { // /i/
f1 = 260 ;
f2 = 2200 ;
}
if ( vowel == 2 ) { // /u/
f1 = 310 ;
f2 = 900 ;
}
if ( vowel == 3 ) { // /a/
f1 = 750 ;
f2 = 1100 ;
}
if ( vowel == 4 ) { // /E/
f1 = 550 ;
f2 = 1750 ;
}
if ( ! oldf1 ) { // initialization for note startup
tcount = ratio;
oldf1 = f1 ;
curf1 = f1 ;
oldf2 = f2 ;
curf2 = f2 ;
}
if ( f1 != oldf1 || f2 != oldf2 ) { // computes smooth format shift
curf1 = oldf1 + ct / trans * ( f1 - oldf1 ) ;
curf2 = oldf2 + ct / trans * ( f2 - oldf2 ) ;
ct = ct + 1 / k_rate ;
tcount = tcount - 1;
}
if ( tcount == 0 ) { // terminus of format shift
ct = 0 ;
oldf1 = f1 ;
oldf2 = f2 ;
tcount = ratio;
}

// a-rate -- this code is executed at the a-rate 44100 Hertz. For the sake
of efficiency, one
// wants to do as little as possible at the a-rate. Depending on how fast
one's computer is,
// how much code is in the a-rate section and whether one's MPEG-4
Structured Audio rendering
// environment supports it, one either generates an output file or
real-time audio. The
// environment I'm using, "sfront" on Windows with the GNU compilers,
doesn't work on real-time
// yet, so I can only generate "wav" files.

// vibrato'd singing frequency
vibfreq = cpspitch * ( oscil ( vib , 5 , - 1 ) * 0.020000 + 1 ) / 2 +
arand ( 5 ) ;

// if the vibrato gets in the way of your comparisons, this is where it's
generated. To
// eliminate it, just use "cpspitch" instead of "vibfreq" in the
statements below and comment
// this one out.

// here is the simulation of the vocal chords ... there are two choices
which give the same
// waveform, I think. Note that "fast" was zeroed above, so the first
branch is taken. "buzz"
// is a table-driven oscillator that generates waveforms like square,
pulse and sawtooth waves
// by additive synthesis of small numbers of partials. This is done to
avoid generating
// harmonics above the Nyquist rate. If one wanted to use a non-harmonic
"vocal chord",
// one would change the code here.

if (!fast) // computes raw glottal waveform
{
a = amp * buzz ( vibfreq , 0 , 1 , 0.800000 ) ;
}
else
{
a = amp * oscil ( buzztable, vibfreq ) ;
}

// apply resonances
// note bandpass is non-normative, will sound different with
// different decoders
// "normative" is an MPEG-4 Structured Audio buzzword which means "sounds
the same regardless
// of implementation". So this comment says that "bandpass" doesn't
necessarily get implemented
// the same way in all implementations.

reson1 = bandpass ( a , curf1 , curf1 / 5.500000 ) ;
reson2 = bandpass ( a , curf2 , curf2 / 5.500000 ) ;

// blended final output

out = ( a / 4 + reson1 + reson2 ) / 2 ;
output ( out ) ;

// I should probably draw a block diagram here, but what is happening is
that the audio is
// generated into the "a" signal, passed through the two resonators into
the "reson1" and
// "reson2" signals, then blended into the "out" signal. Then the "out"
signal is sent by
// the "output" statement to the "wav" file.

}
//==========================================================================
=====================

So, Paul (and others) what is the experiment we want to do? Replace the
"buzz" (harmonic generator) with what? Remember, we have a C-like "general
purpose" language at our disposal, so if we wanted to, for example, let our
pitch be determined by table lookup and have a "control knob" that defined
how "harmonic" our signal generator feeding into the formant resonators is,
all we have to do is figure out how to code it :-).
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

Hi Ed-

I would suggest "stretching" and "squeezing" the partials. Based on what
I've read, if the partials are much more than 10% "stretched" or "squeezed"
the timbre falls apart.

-Paul

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> Hmm . . . Pythagorean is JI and yet it is terrific for melody . . .
> lots of non-ET non-JI
> systems, especially MOS scales and the like, are perfect for melody.

I don't think we should include non-ET non-JI systems this early in
this discussion. Neil was comparing the ETs he's been using for
years to the JI system(s) he's exploring now.

It's true that Pythagorean is terrific for melody. In 7 out of 12,
it offers only two step sizes, like ET scales do. Paul, if I
remember
correctly, you have argued in the past that the consistent step sizes
of ETs make for smoother melodies, as compared with 3 or more
different step sizes that result from many >3-limit JI systems.

> . . ET is only
> important if you want to minimize the total number of pitches you
> want to use for your
> music.

That seems like a narrow view. It assumes that you have a goal in
mind that includes an efficiency of resources in your scales. It can
be fun to generate integer tunings of 12 or fewer tones - limit
yourself up front - and explore whatever each has to offer. No ETs
required. That kind of almost aleatory tuning exploration might not
appeal to everybody but it can be a fruitful method of finding new
pitch pallettes. It merely requires, in Jay's words, "the musical
sensibility to render their musical properties apparent." Nicely
said.

David J. Finnamore

David Finnamore wrote,

>It's true that Pythagorean is terrific for melody. In 7 out of 12,
>it offers only two step sizes, like ET scales do. Paul, if I
>remember
>correctly, you have argued in the past that the consistent step sizes
>of ETs make for smoother melodies, as compared with 3 or more
>different step sizes that result from many >3-limit JI systems.

Right, but ET's don't have any advantage here over, say, Dan's Golden or
Silver scales.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> _any_ periodic sound, such as a
> _sustained_ (rather than
> decaying) musical sound as from a voice, brass, reed, or bowed
string
> instrument,
> _must_ have EXACTLY integer partials.

The key word being "periodic," right? Which most sustained tones
from voices, brass, reed, or bowed string instruments are not, for a
variety of reasons. Good thing, too, or music would be much more
boring. I'm curious, what does "sustained" rather than "decaying"
have to do with inhamonicity of partials? It's quite possible, isn't
it, to have a decaying waveform that is periodic except for
overall amplitude? Don't bowed stringed instruments have slight
inharmonicity like plucked ones? Lot's of questions, sorry.

David J. Finnamore

David wrote,

>It's quite possible, isn't
>it, to have a decaying waveform that is periodic except for
>overall amplitude?

Of course!

>Don't bowed stringed instruments have slight
>inharmonicity like plucked ones?

Nope! That's the point I was trying to make. The slip-stick motion of the
bow has a phase-locked waveform. Same for brasses -- though the resonances
of the bore are slightly (or very) inharmonic, the vibration produced by the
lips is phase-locked. We got pretty in-depth on this a few years ago on the
list . . . see Benade's book, or maybe you'll have to dig a little deeper
(but not much).

buddhi@paradise.net.nz writes:

> I suspect that ET will be found to be a contributing factor
> to the degradation of health , and general harmonic existence amongst
> fellow man.

Woah! Does this mean that musicians have a moral responsibilty to use
consonance?

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Edward Borasky" <znmeb@t...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14872

WAAH! WHEE!

This is interesting, but what am I supposed to be hearing in this
.wav file again??

________ _____ __ __
Joseph Pehrson

-----Original Message-----
From: AMiltonF@aol.com <AMiltonF@aol.com>
To: tuning@egroups.com <tuning@egroups.com>
Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000 18:31
Subject: Re: [tuning] JI, ET's, and special

>buddhi@paradise.net.nz writes:
>
>> I suspect that ET will be found to be a contributing factor
>> to the degradation of health , and general harmonic existence amongst
>> fellow man.
>
>Woah! Does this mean that musicians have a moral responsibilty to use
>consonance?

Not necessarily only consonance. Dissonance is also good.But yes, IMHO
musicians DO have a moral
responsilbilty to create sound vibrations that will uplift others.

>
>

Buddhi!
I would be happy if they just prevented doing things that made me sick. There is one
artist here , a very nice person also, but does a music that involves some single pitches at
high volume that makes me physically sick the next day. I happened more than once. allot of
noise music at times will have the same effect. i have an open mind but am in-closed in a
body.

Buddhi Wilcox wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AMiltonF@aol.com <AMiltonF@aol.com>
> To: tuning@egroups.com <tuning@egroups.com>
> Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000 18:31
> Subject: Re: [tuning] JI, ET's, and special
>
> >buddhi@paradise.net.nz writes:
> >
> >> I suspect that ET will be found to be a contributing factor
> >> to the degradation of health , and general harmonic existence amongst
> >> fellow man.
> >
> >Woah! Does this mean that musicians have a moral responsibilty to use
> >consonance?
>
> Not necessarily only consonance. Dissonance is also good.But yes, IMHO
> musicians DO have a moral
> responsilbilty to create sound vibrations that will uplift others.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria island
www.anaphoria.com

In a message dated 10/22/00 11:16:22 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
buddhi@paradise.net.nz writes:

> Not necessarily only consonance. Dissonance is also good.But yes, IMHO
> musicians DO have a moral
> responsilbilty to create sound vibrations that will uplift others.

I'm not familiar with IMHO. What does that stand for?

Yeah. I was reading David Cope's "Techniques of the Contemporary Composer",
a work that I think is fabulous, and I got to the point where he described
"Danger Music". It took me a while to realize that there really *are*
composers who do that sort of thing.

I used to go the the Computer Music Conferences in the 1970s. At one of
them, there was a piece by a world-renowned experimental composer who shall
remain nameless (Xenakis). It started out fairly quiet, something like
raindrops falling on a tin roof. Gradually, it got louder and louder. As it
did, audience members started walking out. I stayed as long as I could, but
in the end I said, "Screw it", and left as well, kicking myself firmly in
the ass for having stayed as long as I had. After all, this was *Xenakis* --
one of my heroes!

When I went to recent concerts of Joseph Waters, a Portland composer whose
works use elements of rock as well as classical, he was very careful up
front to warn people that the music could be loud for people who weren't
used to it, and that it was OK to put your fingers in your ears. In fact, at
one of the concerts, they were selling those foam earplugs.

As I write this, the wonderful strains of Lou Harrison's "Mass to St.
Anthony" are coming at me, courtesy of my local classical station, KBPS-FM.
It's pledge week; I spent three hours this afternoon taking pledges on the
phone. As I've said numerous times in this and other places, we are very
lucky to have a classical station that plays 20th century music and supports
the local new music groups. I've been places like Washington DC that are not
as fortunate. And it's also fortunate that there are composers like Harrison
and others who write the antithesis of danger music.

Oh, yeah, one last rant: why on Earth does the Tuning Punks page on MP3.com
take so long to load? Surely there must be lots of folks with 56K modems
that have just given up on it. Is it just a question of needing a
hierarchical structure instead of just being a single page, or is there more
to it than that? Does someone have some web space they can donate for
"tuning punks" that will load more rapidly? Maybe we should get another
group at eGroups with another disk allocation just for "Tuning Punks"; the
eGroups pages load a boatload faster than the Tuning Punks site.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kraig Grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:37 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] JI, ET's, and special
>
>
> Buddhi!
> I would be happy if they just prevented doing things that
> made me sick. There is one
> artist here , a very nice person also, but does a music that
> involves some single pitches at
> high volume that makes me physically sick the next day. I
> happened more than once. allot of
> noise music at times will have the same effect. i have an open
> mind but am in-closed in a
> body.

I would be interested in hosting a page dedicated to the tuning list
but my site needs high speed access to really be enjoyed
And i would like to have it revolve every month so it would not be
a constant thing but a showcase of the tuning brilliance apparent and
flourishing on the list right now
then maybe week can set up a voting script so i can learn Java stuff and
week could keep the 12 voted
keepers and put them to disc/video whatever....
i have plenty of space

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@teleport.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:27 PM
Subject: [tuning] Danger Music and other comments

> Yeah. I was reading David Cope's "Techniques of the Contemporary
Composer",
> a work that I think is fabulous, and I got to the point where he described
> "Danger Music". It took me a while to realize that there really *are*
> composers who do that sort of thing.
>
> I used to go the the Computer Music Conferences in the 1970s. At one of
> them, there was a piece by a world-renowned experimental composer who
shall
> remain nameless (Xenakis). It started out fairly quiet, something like
> raindrops falling on a tin roof. Gradually, it got louder and louder. As
it
> did, audience members started walking out. I stayed as long as I could,
but
> in the end I said, "Screw it", and left as well, kicking myself firmly in
> the ass for having stayed as long as I had. After all, this was
*Xenakis* --
> one of my heroes!
>
> When I went to recent concerts of Joseph Waters, a Portland composer whose
> works use elements of rock as well as classical, he was very careful up
> front to warn people that the music could be loud for people who weren't
> used to it, and that it was OK to put your fingers in your ears. In fact,
at
> one of the concerts, they were selling those foam earplugs.
>
> As I write this, the wonderful strains of Lou Harrison's "Mass to St.
> Anthony" are coming at me, courtesy of my local classical station,
KBPS-FM.
> It's pledge week; I spent three hours this afternoon taking pledges on the
> phone. As I've said numerous times in this and other places, we are very
> lucky to have a classical station that plays 20th century music and
supports
> the local new music groups. I've been places like Washington DC that are
not
> as fortunate. And it's also fortunate that there are composers like
Harrison
> and others who write the antithesis of danger music.
>
> Oh, yeah, one last rant: why on Earth does the Tuning Punks page on
MP3.com
> take so long to load? Surely there must be lots of folks with 56K modems
> that have just given up on it. Is it just a question of needing a
> hierarchical structure instead of just being a single page, or is there
more
> to it than that? Does someone have some web space they can donate for
> "tuning punks" that will load more rapidly? Maybe we should get another
> group at eGroups with another disk allocation just for "Tuning Punks"; the
> eGroups pages load a boatload faster than the Tuning Punks site.
> --
> M. Edward Borasky
> mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
> http://www.borasky-research.com
>
> Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kraig Grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:37 PM
> > To: tuning@egroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [tuning] JI, ET's, and special
> >
> >
> > Buddhi!
> > I would be happy if they just prevented doing things that
> > made me sick. There is one
> > artist here , a very nice person also, but does a music that
> > involves some single pitches at
> > high volume that makes me physically sick the next day. I
> > happened more than once. allot of
> > noise music at times will have the same effect. i have an open
> > mind but am in-closed in a
> > body.
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
emails.
>
>
>

Once there's an MP4 player available, I'll start posting my stuff in that
format. I can post Windows EXE files now that are moderately small; these
EXE files generate a WAV file when executed. If the "sfront", GNU and
Microsoft folks would get their acts together, I could make the EXEs
actually play the music. Linux is better in this regard; you can generate
audio now. But I don't have Linux and it looks like it will be at least six
months before I do.

Meanwhile, if anyone else on the list wants to play with MPEG-4 Structured
Audio, the web site is http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~lazzaro/sa/index.html.
I'm pretty much committed to using it for all my electronic compositions,
although there are quite a few other tools that I use for things like
spectrum analysis.

MPEG-4 Structured Audio is a fascinating concept; instead of storing /
uploading / downloading / streaming sound *data*, one stores / uploads /
downloads / streams the *algorithm* for creating the sound! This generates
some amazing compression ratios. For example, the WAV file I posted
yesterday is almost 900 K bytes for 10 seconds or so of sound, and that's CD
quality *monaural*. The text files required to re-create the file -- the
algorithm for creating the sound -- take up about 4300 bytes, a compression
ratio of 209 to 1!
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shreeswifty [mailto:ppagano@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 6:33 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Danger Music and other comments
>
>
> I would be interested in hosting a page dedicated to the tuning list
> but my site needs high speed access to really be enjoyed
> And i would like to have it revolve every month so it would not be
> a constant thing but a showcase of the tuning brilliance apparent and
> flourishing on the list right now
> then maybe week can set up a voting script so i can learn Java stuff and
> week could keep the 12 voted
> keepers and put them to disc/video whatever....
> i have plenty of space
>
> Pat Pagano, Director
> South East Just Intonation Society
> http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
> http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@teleport.com>
> To: <tuning@egroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:27 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Danger Music and other comments
>
>
> > Yeah. I was reading David Cope's "Techniques of the Contemporary
> Composer",
> > a work that I think is fabulous, and I got to the point where
> he described
> > "Danger Music". It took me a while to realize that there really *are*
> > composers who do that sort of thing.
> >
> > I used to go the the Computer Music Conferences in the 1970s. At one of
> > them, there was a piece by a world-renowned experimental composer who
> shall
> > remain nameless (Xenakis). It started out fairly quiet, something like
> > raindrops falling on a tin roof. Gradually, it got louder and louder. As
> it
> > did, audience members started walking out. I stayed as long as I could,
> but
> > in the end I said, "Screw it", and left as well, kicking myself
> firmly in
> > the ass for having stayed as long as I had. After all, this was
> *Xenakis* --
> > one of my heroes!
> >
> > When I went to recent concerts of Joseph Waters, a Portland
> composer whose
> > works use elements of rock as well as classical, he was very careful up
> > front to warn people that the music could be loud for people who weren't
> > used to it, and that it was OK to put your fingers in your
> ears. In fact,
> at
> > one of the concerts, they were selling those foam earplugs.
> >
> > As I write this, the wonderful strains of Lou Harrison's "Mass to St.
> > Anthony" are coming at me, courtesy of my local classical station,
> KBPS-FM.
> > It's pledge week; I spent three hours this afternoon taking
> pledges on the
> > phone. As I've said numerous times in this and other places, we are very
> > lucky to have a classical station that plays 20th century music and
> supports
> > the local new music groups. I've been places like Washington DC that are
> not
> > as fortunate. And it's also fortunate that there are composers like
> Harrison
> > and others who write the antithesis of danger music.
> >
> > Oh, yeah, one last rant: why on Earth does the Tuning Punks page on
> MP3.com
> > take so long to load? Surely there must be lots of folks with 56K modems
> > that have just given up on it. Is it just a question of needing a
> > hierarchical structure instead of just being a single page, or is there
> more
> > to it than that? Does someone have some web space they can donate for
> > "tuning punks" that will load more rapidly? Maybe we should get another
> > group at eGroups with another disk allocation just for "Tuning
> Punks"; the
> > eGroups pages load a boatload faster than the Tuning Punks site.
> > --
> > M. Edward Borasky
> > mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
> > http://www.borasky-research.com
> >
> > Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kraig Grady [mailto:kraiggrady@anaphoria.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 4:37 PM
> > > To: tuning@egroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [tuning] JI, ET's, and special
> > >
> > >
> > > Buddhi!
> > > I would be happy if they just prevented doing things that
> > > made me sick. There is one
> > > artist here , a very nice person also, but does a music that
> > > involves some single pitches at
> > > high volume that makes me physically sick the next day. I
> > > happened more than once. allot of
> > > noise music at times will have the same effect. i have an open
> > > mind but am in-closed in a
> > > body.
> >
> >
> >
> > You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> > email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> > tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> > tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> > tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery
> on hold for
> the tuning group.
> > tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest
> mode.
> > tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to individual
> emails.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@egroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@egroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@egroups.com - put your email message delivery on
> hold for the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@egroups.com - change your subscription to daily
> digest mode.
> tuning-normal@egroups.com - change your subscription to
> individual emails.
>
>
>

Cool. Kind of like eps for sound? (although eps files can be quite large)
Does this mean that CDs will be able to be ripped to MP4?

DTB

>>MPEG-4 Structured Audio is a fascinating concept; instead of storing /
>>uploading / downloading / streaming sound *data*, one stores / uploads /
>>downloads / streams the *algorithm* for creating the sound! This generates
>>some amazing compression ratios. For example, the WAV file I posted
>>yesterday is almost 900 K bytes for 10 seconds or so of sound,
>>and that's CD
>>quality *monaural*. The text files required to re-create the file -- the
>>algorithm for creating the sound -- take up about 4300 bytes, a
>>compression
>>ratio of 209 to 1!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Darren Burgess [mailto:DBURGESS@ACCELERATION.NET]
> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 8:11 PM
> To: tuning@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Danger Music and other comments
>
>
> Cool. Kind of like eps for sound? (although eps files can be
> quite large)
> Does this mean that CDs will be able to be ripped to MP4?
>
> DTB

That is quite a ways off :-). In theory it can be done with loss of fidelity
now, like MP3. But the amount of processing power required is humongous. The
main "target market" for MPEG-4 Structured Audio is things like games, where
most of the sounds are synthesized. I'm using it because I'm a pure computer
composer, and it does (in principle) everything CSound can do, but the
syntax is easier to read than CSound.

Interestingly enough, I don't see the "major" synthesizer manufacturers like
Yamaha jumping on either the CSound or MPEG-4 SA bandwagon. I think their
fortunes are irrevocably tied to MIDI, Sound Fonts and other things that
they've made into de facto standards. I don't see Microsoft jumping on that
bandwagon either. In short, for now anyway, MPEG-4 Structured Audio is just
an interesting phenomenon, and a force to watch. At least one of the
composers on the Tuning Punks site (I don't remember who) uses it. MPEG-4 SA
tools can take MIDI input, of course, as can CSound, reducing the user's
task to one of digital synthesizer design, which, unfortunately, has a steep
learning curve. But MPEG-4 SA and its predecessor CSound are infinitely
flexible -- both are general-purpose digital signal processing engines.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com

Cold leftover pizza: it's not just for breakfast any more!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> WAAH! WHEE!
>
> This is interesting, but what am I supposed to be hearing in this
> .wav file again??

Sung vowels (in 12-tet :-) synthesized by a computer program in the SAOL
language. I haven't had much of a chance to play with the code; I did take
the vibrato out and doing that removes the illusion that it is people
singing -- it sounds decidedly synthetic without the vibrato.
--
znmeb@teleport.com (M. Edward Borasky) http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- and, of course, the
boogeyman." Pat Paulsen