Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Latest Synths and Microtuning Support

Been thinking about getting a new synth to replace my 10 year old
Yamaha SY77 (which offers great alt tuning support) and have been
surfing the web but I can't seem to find much info if all these new
synths offer any microtuning support.

When you read the docs, all they seem to care about is the latest
analog dance sounds, etc..., whatever... I guess they know the
market... :) No info on tuning...

Any help would be appreciated!

jeff harrington
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm

🔗JAY MACHADO <jaymachado@hotmail.com>

I'm also looking for a keyboard with good alt tuning support. I spoke emailed
the elctronic composer Robert Rich for advice, and this is part of his reply to
me:

"...Alas, I am not as up-to-date on the features of the latest synths, since I
haven't been in the market for a synth in a long time. I do know that most
Yamaha synths support tunings, as do some by Korg. The Emu Proteus series holds
one user tuning (Emu samplers do not have tuning tables.) Among samplers,
Ensoniq and Kurzweil support tuning tables. Roland has never had a decent tuning
feature in any of its synths that I know of. Also, I remember reading that the
Waldorf Microwave was tuneable."

"I hope this helps a bit. I recommend that you look deeply into the features of
any synth that interests you, and ask very direct questions to the manufacturers
about tuning features. If they realize that there are people interested in
tuning, who base their purchases on the tunability of a synth, then they might
spend more effort to add these features to the gear."

To which I can only add amen, we should let the manufacturers know that there
are a few of us out here that will make buying decisions based on the
availability of these features. Santa just got me a Yamaha SW1000XG soundcard
for my PC; I believe this supports alt tunings -- sure hope so anyway! I also
would appreciate any specific recomendations for a workstation type keyboard
currently on the market. Happy Holidays, All!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
[http://explorer.msn.com]

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

JAY MACHADO wrote:
>
> I'm also looking for a keyboard with good alt tuning support. I spoke
> emailed the elctronic composer Robert Rich for advice, and this is
> part of his reply to me:
>
> "...Alas, I am not as up-to-date on the features of the latest synths,
> since I haven't been in the market for a synth in a long time. I do
> know that most Yamaha synths support tunings, as do some by Korg. The
> Emu Proteus series holds one user tuning (Emu samplers do not have
> tuning tables.) Among samplers, Ensoniq and Kurzweil support tuning
> tables. Roland has never had a decent tuning feature in any of its
> synths that I know of. Also, I remember reading that the Waldorf
> Microwave was tuneable."

Korg synths have tuning tables.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* 49/32 R a d i o "all microtonal, all the time"
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

🔗Jeff Harrington <jeff@parnasse.com>

🔗shreeswifty <ppagano@bellsouth.net>

I am sticking with the TX81s 1.56 res or not

Pat Pagano, Director
South East Just Intonation Society
http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Harrington <jeff@parnasse.com>
To: <tuning@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 8:52 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: Latest Synths and Microtuning Support

> FWIW, the latest Yamaha synths, the EX5, EX7 have fixed tuning tables
> (32 choices) and only quartertone and eighthtone microntonal
> support. Which Korg Synths are decent for doing innovative sound
> work? (Thanks...)
>
> Ugh... maybe I'll just keep my SY77...
>
> jeff
> http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "shreeswifty" <ppagano@b...> wrote:
> I am sticking with the TX81s 1.56 res or not

Pat,

I recently made a spreadsheet to see how accurately the 768 tuning
units of the TX81Z (of which I own 2) would come to that of a 1068 or
1200 unit synth, and all I can conclude is that folks should not
worry about this small deviation one bit as it "nailed" the same
cents values for the majority of rational tunings I checked. Someone
really thought this "768" out really well - it works! It was however
a littel less unkind to Equal Temperaments.

I've been enjoying my new TX802 - equivalent to 8 DX7iis! A truly
clean and beautiful instrument.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

P.S. BTW thanks for the X-mas image (cute kitties!)! Always a treat
to put the faces with the ASCII.

>
> Pat Pagano, Director
> South East Just Intonation Society
> http://indians.australians.com/meherbaba/
> http://www.screwmusicforever.com/SHREESWIFT/
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Harrington <jeff@p...>
> To: <tuning@egroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 8:52 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Latest Synths and Microtuning Support
>
>
> > FWIW, the latest Yamaha synths, the EX5, EX7 have fixed tuning
tables
> > (32 choices) and only quartertone and eighthtone microntonal
> > support. Which Korg Synths are decent for doing innovative sound
> > work? (Thanks...)
> >
> > Ugh... maybe I'll just keep my SY77...
> >
> > jeff
> > http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

🔗Justin White <justin.white@davidjones.com.au>

Jeff,
There are a few good new synths out there that support tuning tables. You
mentioned Korg. Of korg synths the best bet would be a Z1 [physical
modeling synth] as it allows full midi retuning [i.e you can assign any
pitch to any midi note no.] 1cent resolution.
Other than the Korg there is the Microwave which has a feature for adaptive
tuning [ not as advanced as it could be but it's a start] it has 1.56 cents
tuning resolution which is definetly audible. Also the there is the
Kurzweil synth/samplers with 1 cent resolution [a bit pricey though]. My
pick would be the new Proteus 2000 which supports the midi tuning dump and
improves pitch resolution on it's predecessor [from 1.56cents to 0.39
cents] and has nice sounds. What I have I think is the best if you want a
sampler [ensoniq asrx [now Ensoniq Asrx pro] which has resolution of 0.39
cents. All the synths I have suggested here have full midi retuning
ability.

Another option are soft synths such as Reaktor or Metasynth, these things
are have kick arse resolution and are as synths way more flexible than any
of the above. The only down side is you need a beefy computer to handle
them.

Justin White

DAVID JONES LIMITED ACN 000 074 573

This email and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for
the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose
or use the information contained in it. If you have received this email in
error, please tell us immediately by return email and delete the document.

The contents and any attachments are the opinion of the sender and not
necessarily that of David Jones Limited.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

> Been thinking about getting a new synth to replace my 10 year old
> Yamaha SY77 ... No info on tuning...
> Any help would be appreciated!

Check out John Loffink's web page on the topic: http://home.att.net/~microtonal/

I think it's worth pointing out though that Brian McLaren objects strongly to some of the
information on that web page as grossly misleading. His concerns partly come down to the fact
that this web page mentions support for 12-tone-per-octave tuning tables (only) as one
possible kind of microtonal support. Brian feels that such tuning tables have such limited
usefulness as to render them nonmicrotonal for all realistic purposes. He agrees though that
they're usable for some purposes, such as tunings of less than 12 tones per octave (10TET,
7TET, or 12-or-fewer-toned sub/harmonic-series subsets).

🔗mango <j.kolling@chello.nl>

Hi,

Justin White wrote:

> Jeff,
> There are a few good new synths out there that support tuning tables. You
> mentioned Korg. Of korg synths the best bet would be a Z1 [physical
> modeling synth] as it allows full midi retuning [i.e you can assign any
> pitch to any midi note no.] 1cent resolution.

Really? Can you "retune" it from the front panel also? or does it need to be in an external
software sequencer orso? with sys-ex, or something.

Thank you,
Joel

🔗Monz <MONZ@JUNO.COM>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jeff Harrington" <jeff@p...> wrote:

> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16899
>
> FWIW, the latest Yamaha synths, the EX5, EX7 have fixed
> tuning tables (32 choices) and only quartertone and eighthtone
> microntonal support. Which Korg Synths are decent for doing
> innovative sound work? (Thanks...)
>
> Ugh... maybe I'll just keep my SY77...

In haste, I just thought I'd add that my old Yamaha TG77
(the rack mount version of the SY77) had center-stage in
my studio. What a great axe. Too bad I left it alone in
my house and it got stolen (along with everything else...)

Someone from the list (can't remember who right now... was
it Darren Burgess?) asked me privately if I could send my
TG77 tuning files. Back in those days I didn't have a
hard-drive, so they're stored on floppies somewhere... I have
thousands of floppies. Right now things are hectic, but
when I'm back in CA and can find them, I'll send them.
Just didn't want that request to go without a response.

-monz

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

In-Reply-To: <3A4AD356.6B303FD@texas.net>
Gary Morrison wrote:

> Check out John Loffink's web page on the topic:
> http://home.att.net/~microtonal/
>
> I think it's worth pointing out though that Brian McLaren objects
> strongly to some of the
> information on that web page as grossly misleading. His concerns
> partly come down to the fact
> that this web page mentions support for 12-tone-per-octave tuning
> tables (only) as one
> possible kind of microtonal support. Brian feels that such tuning
> tables have such limited
> usefulness as to render them nonmicrotonal for all realistic purposes.
> He agrees though that
> they're usable for some purposes, such as tunings of less than 12 tones
> per octave (10TET,
> 7TET, or 12-or-fewer-toned sub/harmonic-series subsets).

That's a strange objection, because "12 note Octave Scales" and "Full
Keyboard Scales" are listed in separate columns with big green labels at
the top. Should this information be censored because Brian doesn't
approve of it?

Graham

🔗Alexandros Papadopoulos <alexmoog@hotmail.com>

People ,
How can you stand FM synthesis on your DX,TX, and SY's ?
The same for analog modeling and sample playback.
Real analog seems the most fresh and adventurous synthesis method to me , and I don't do dance music.
I know of only one real analog synth that has tuning tables though.
A Marion systems synth designed by Tom Oberheim . Doepfer who makes modular synthesizers will design a microtonal module if they have enough interest , so anyone interested in synthesizers lets send an email asking for one !
Happy holidays

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

Gary Morrison wrote,

>Check out John Loffink's web page on the topic:
http://home.att.net/~microtonal/

>I think it's worth pointing out though that Brian McLaren objects strongly
to some of the
>information on that web page as grossly misleading. His concerns partly
come down to the fact
>that this web page mentions support for 12-tone-per-octave tuning tables
(only) as one
>possible kind of microtonal support. Brian feels that such tuning tables
have such limited
>usefulness as to render them nonmicrotonal for all realistic purposes. He
agrees though that
>they're usable for some purposes, such as tunings of less than 12 tones per
octave (10TET,
>7TET, or 12-or-fewer-toned sub/harmonic-series subsets).

As usual, Brian McLaren is a few cards short of a full deck. There's nothing
grossly misleading about John Loffink's page. He has a single column for
"Tuning range per note", with entries in the column such as "-64, +63 cents"
or "+-99 cents" or "+-50 cents"; or "full audio range". He has another
column for "12 note Octave Scales" which are useful for meantone,
Pythagorean, 12-out-of-22, the cases you mention above, and more, and then
he has another column for "Full Keyboard Scales", which would handle the
cases that Brian happens to find more interesting. What's misleading about
that? Although there is at least one error on John's page (the actual tuning
resolution of the Ensoniq VFX-SD is 2.34 cents, not 1.56 cents), the page is
by no means "grossly misleading".

Brian McLaren is grossly misleading.

🔗Jeff Harrington <jeff@parnasse.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, " Monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@egroups.com, "Jeff Harrington" <jeff@p...> wrote:
>
> > http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16899
> >
> > FWIW, the latest Yamaha synths, the EX5, EX7 have fixed
> > tuning tables (32 choices) and only quartertone and eighthtone
> > microntonal support. Which Korg Synths are decent for doing
> > innovative sound work? (Thanks...)
> >
> > Ugh... maybe I'll just keep my SY77...
>
>
> In haste, I just thought I'd add that my old Yamaha TG77
> (the rack mount version of the SY77) had center-stage in
> my studio. What a great axe. Too bad I left it alone in
> my house and it got stolen (along with everything else...)
>
> Someone from the list (can't remember who right now... was
> it Darren Burgess?) asked me privately if I could send my
> TG77 tuning files. Back in those days I didn't have a
> hard-drive, so they're stored on floppies somewhere... I have
> thousands of floppies. Right now things are hectic, but
> when I'm back in CA and can find them, I'll send them.
> Just didn't want that request to go without a response.
>

I've got a bunch of SY/TG77 tuning files (in fact I think I ported
most of them from DX7 tuning files I found at ucsd back 10 years
ago... plus I can make custom ones from a little program I wrote if
anybody needs a specific tuning.

Who wants 'em? I've still got a TG77 too... you can get them used
for about $300 I believe. Still shopping but enjoying the
discussion... presently looking at the Roland JP-8080. No
microtuning capability - but it allows for external audio input
(SY77!) with a 40 knob suite of filter/modulation controllers...

jeff
http://www.parnasse.com/jeff.htm

🔗Microtonal <microtonal@worldnet.att.net>

I just returned from vacation to find some apparent controversy regarding
Brian McLaren and my Microtonal Synthesis web site. Brian personally sent
me a lengthy disseration detailing why he thought synthesizers with only 12
note per octave tuning scales should not be considered microtonal. I
responded briefly with my opinions. I would no sooner remove the 12 note
per octave category from my site than remove Lou Harrison, Wendy Carlos and
Robert Rich, all of whom compose primarily or exclusively in 12 note per
octave microtonal scales, from the recommended listening list. I supply the
information so the web site visitor can make a decision about what they
need. I don't try to make that decision for them, or what constitutes
microtonal music. I haven't heard back from Brian on that specific email,
but did received a big stack of his excellent microtonal CDs in the process.

John Loffink
microtonal@worldnet.att.net
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://home.att.net/~microtonal

> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:44:55 -0600
> From: Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>
> Subject: Re: Latest Synths and Microtuning Support
>
> > Been thinking about getting a new synth to replace my 10 year old
> > Yamaha SY77 ... No info on tuning...
> > Any help would be appreciated!
>
> Check out John Loffink's web page on the topic:
http://home.att.net/~microtonal/
>
> I think it's worth pointing out though that Brian McLaren objects strongly
to some of the
> information on that web page as grossly misleading. His concerns partly
come down to the fact
> that this web page mentions support for 12-tone-per-octave tuning tables
(only) as one
> possible kind of microtonal support. Brian feels that such tuning tables
have such limited
> usefulness as to render them nonmicrotonal for all realistic purposes. He
agrees though that
> they're usable for some purposes, such as tunings of less than 12 tones
per octave (10TET,
> 7TET, or 12-or-fewer-toned sub/harmonic-series subsets).
>
>
>

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

> I just returned from vacation to find some apparent controversy regarding
> Brian McLaren and my Microtonal Synthesis web site.

I'll also point out that, even though I quoted Brian, I gave that quote as an expert opinion,
and not as my personal opinion. I have had at least some success with breaking microtonal
tunings into 12-toned subsets, whereas Brian views that as unusable. I have done that by
playing the music in one of those subsets, and then note-by-note prepending the MIDI messages
to switch between the subsets to the MIDI event list.

Unlike Brian, I find mapping a tuning "linearly" across the keyboard in a manner it entirely
ignores the 7+5 structure of the keyboard, and such that octave boundaries in the tuning
mismatch octave boundaries in the tuning, very difficult to grasp. That except on a guitar
controller, since it has no inherent 7+5 structure. That probably has to do with the fact
that Brian is a capable keyboardist whereas I've always played other instruments, and mostly
make music with a saxophone-fingering WX-11 wind controller.

Here are my personal opinions of Brian. Please understand that I'm not saying the following
to malign Brian. I'm saying them as my own personal observations in hopes of helping you
folks understand him and work with him.

1. Above all else, he's a real doer; he gets a lot of microtonal music done.
2. He does that music, and most everything else it seems, on his own terms.
3. If you disagree with his terms, he'll give you the impression (accurate or not is hard to
say) that he thinks you're incompetent. In most cases though - most cases - he doesn't
hold a grudge against most such people, despite possible appearances to the contrary.
4. In perhaps the understatement of the century, Chris Chapman told me that Brian "has a way
with words." He has very clever and amusing ways of describing many things, although
sometimes a bit cynically. In criticizing people to their faces though, he usually -
again usually - doesn't use a cynical tone, although it may seem like it. Instead he
uses what he perceives to be "just the facts, ma'am" - brutal honesty, so to speak.

As an example of the latter, I recently sent him a CD of a test of how well Ray Gun would
eliminate noise from a record. I appropriately chose a record that had a lot of recording
hiss and pops in it, and he mistook that hiss for being in my studio's mixer. I would have
said something like, "this is odd: I hear a lot of hiss in this recording, and I can't seem
to find anything in my system that would account for it; could something perhaps be
misadjusted in your mixer?". He instead said "your mixer has a lot of noise." (For the
record, that may not be an exact quote, but it's close.) Is that an insult? Did he say that
in an attempt to upset me? No. It's a candy-coating-free statement of what he perceived, in
this case incorrectly but not aways, to be fact. Would it have upset me if I didn't know him
better? Probably.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Paul H. Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16953

> Gary Morrison wrote,
>
> >Check out John Loffink's web page on the topic:
> http://home.att.net/~microtonal/
>
> >I think it's worth pointing out though that Brian McLaren objects
strongly to some of the information on that web page as grossly
misleading. His concerns partly come down to the fact that this web
page mentions support for 12-tone-per-octave tuning tables (only) as
one possible kind of microtonal support. Brian feels that such
tuning
tables have such limited usefulness as to render them nonmicrotonal
for all realistic purposes.

Of course, we're back to definitions again, but it surely seems one
could make a very good case for using alternate tunings (12 out of
22t-ET or otherwise) with 12 notes per octave as a very viable way to
go... In fact, somebody could probably make a pretty good case that
this, with octave equivalence, is a pretty good way to start... at
least in "training" traditional musicians...
_______ _____ ___ __
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

> Of course, we're back to definitions again, but it surely seems one
> could make a very good case for using alternate tunings (12 out of
> 22t-ET or otherwise) with 12 notes per octave as a very viable way to
> go...

That is precisely what, as I understand it, Brian views as essentially worthless. If you lose
any of the notes of the tuning, I think he feels that you've destroyed the capabilities of the
tuning.

My personal opinion is somewhere in the middle: If the tuning can be reduced to a series of
12-toned subsets (e.g., several different 12-toned subsets of 19TET or 22TET, then that
strikes me as fine as long as you have easy access to all of the notes in the tuning by being
able to quickly switch between several such subsets.

I suspect, although I don't know for sure, that Brian's opinion is that breaking it into
12-toned subsets inherently makes it impossible to have easy access to all of the notes of the
scale.

I counter that argument with the idea that mapping all of the notes linearly across the
keyboard, mismatching octave boundaries in the tuning with octave boundaries on the keyboard,
as well as somehow trying to ignore the inherent 7+5 structure impressed into the keyboard and
imagine in some other such structure, makes it - in most cases - very difficult to find your
way around they keyboard. That in turn makes 12-toned subsets a better approach, at least if
you have the option of post-processing your MIDI streams, unlike in a live-performance
scenario.

On the other hand, I'm simply not a keyboardist, and Brian is, so I can't claim to speak
authoritatively on the subject.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17120

>
> I counter that argument with the idea that mapping all of the notes
linearly across the keyboard, mismatching octave boundaries in the
tuning with octave boundaries on the keyboard, as well as somehow
trying to ignore the inherent 7+5 structure impressed into the
keyboard and imagine in some other such structure, makes it - in most
cases - very difficult to find your way around they keyboard. That
in
turn makes 12-toned subsets a better approach, at least if you have
the option of post-processing your MIDI streams, unlike in a
live-performance scenario.
>
> On the other hand, I'm simply not a keyboardist, and Brian is, so I
can't claim to speak authoritatively on the subject.

My guess is that McLaren just doesn't like the limitation of 12 notes
per octave, regardless of how they're tuned...

Frankly, I personally see it as a positive, not only for keyboardists
but for other "traditional" instrumentalists. The concept of octave
equivalence and the relationship to the traditional scale and
keyboard, with "deviations" from 12-tET makes the learning process
much easier for performers new to alternate tunings... at least,
this is what I'm thinking at the moment...

___________ ______ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

In-Reply-To: <9322ec+pda5@eGroups.com>
Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> My guess is that McLaren just doesn't like the limitation of 12 notes
> per octave, regardless of how they're tuned...

Not only that, but he's an enthusiastic supporter of non-octave scales.
If your scale doesn't contain any octaves, a 12 note octave tuning gives
you 12 notes in total.

> Frankly, I personally see it as a positive, not only for keyboardists
> but for other "traditional" instrumentalists. The concept of octave
> equivalence and the relationship to the traditional scale and
> keyboard, with "deviations" from 12-tET makes the learning process
> much easier for performers new to alternate tunings... at least,
> this is what I'm thinking at the moment...

You can't really understand 22-equal unless you've played it with all 22
notes. Once you've worked out a good chord sequence or melody you may be
able to get it to work with only 12 notes to the octave. But to get the
full character of the tuning, you need the full tuning. So you only need
one synth that supports full-keyboard tables.

12 note octave tunings are certainly convenient. But even if you use them
99% of the time, you'll be stymied for that extra 1% if your synths can't
handle it. Every microtonalist should have experience of playing with
more than 12 notes to the octave.

However, saying that a synth which doesn't support full keyboard tunings
is useless for microtonality is a real jump. Asserting so may be a good
way of getting across your point that >12 tunings are really cool, but to
ignore the existence of less capable synths is way over the top.

When lobbying manufacturers for tuning capability we have to keep pushing
for full-keyboard. It may have minimal commercial value, but would also
require minimal effort to implement. Where it isn't available, I'd rather
have a good sounding, flexible synth with octave tables than an inferior
synth with better tuning capability. I'm no longer interested in hardware
synths with no tuning capability.

Remember the beauty of MIDI is that when you get your new keyboard, ZTar,
or whatever, it may well lend itself to >12 notes per octave. And you can
plug it straight in to your synth with a carefully chosen full-keyboard
tuning. New keyboards are going to face greater resistance if the synths
don't support them in this way.

Graham

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, graham@m... wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17139

>
> 12 note octave tunings are certainly convenient. But even if you
use them 99% of the time, you'll be stymied for that extra 1% if your
synths can't handle it. Every microtonalist should have experience
of playing with more than 12 notes to the octave.
>

Oh sure.... thanks for "weighing in" with this, Graham. I certainly
agree. I was just countering the statement that synths with only 12
tunable notes per octave were totally worthless. I've been finding
I've been working that way, even though I have fully-tunable synth.

Actually, I'm very intrigued with non-octave scales... the next step
to investigate Bohlen-Pierce with the Graham Breed Midi Relay!
Whoopie!
__________ ______ _____ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:
> > Of course, we're back to definitions again, but it surely seems one
> > could make a very good case for using alternate tunings (12 out of
> > 22t-ET or otherwise) with 12 notes per octave as a very viable way to
> > go...
>
> That is precisely what, as I understand it, Brian views as essentially worthless. If you lose
> any of the notes of the tuning, I think he feels that you've destroyed the capabilities of the
> tuning.

Well, then by Brian's logic you could never play Pythagorean or 1/4-comma meantone tuning,
since these tunings have an infinite number of notes.

Absurd!

> I counter that argument with the idea that mapping all of the notes linearly across the
> keyboard, mismatching octave boundaries in the tuning with octave boundaries on the
keyboard,
> as well as somehow trying to ignore the inherent 7+5 structure impressed into the keyboard
and
> imagine in some other such structure, makes it - in most cases - very difficult to find your
> way around they keyboard.

Well, as you probably know by now, I have a different approach when not restricted to 12
notes per acoustical octave -- I map 22-tET to 24 notes of the keyboard, leaving the "E"s
unused, so that I can make use of the symmetries of the keyboard (octave equivalence and
others).

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, graham@m... wrote:
>
> You can't really understand 22-equal unless you've played it with all 22
> notes.

I don't know about that -- it really depends on the music. For many purposes, such as that in my
paper, you can understand 22-equal as two chains of 709-cent fifths a half octave apart. With
only 12 notes, as we've been discussing, you can get several of the interesting 10-note scales
that this arrangement gives you. And it won't affect your decatonic music one bit whether the
tuning closes after 22 notes or not. On the other hand, you may have a highly "chromatic" piece
like my _TIBIA_ on the Tuning Punks webpage -- for that, you definitely need all 22 notes
under your fingers.
>
> 12 note octave tunings are certainly convenient. But even if you use them
> 99% of the time, you'll be stymied for that extra 1% if your synths can't
> handle it. Every microtonalist should have experience of playing with
> more than 12 notes to the octave.

That's why John Loffink's page goes to the trouble of telling you how many full keyboard
tunings each synth supports, as well as how many 12-tone tunings each synth supports. So
whether or not you're interested in 12-tone tunings, you could hardly call the page "grossly
misleading", as Brian McLaren did.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

> Well, as you probably know by now, I have a different approach when not restricted to 12
> notes per acoustical octave -- I map 22-tET to 24 notes of the keyboard, leaving the "E"s
> unused, so that I can make use of the symmetries of the keyboard (octave equivalence and
> others).

I use a somewhat analogous approach to 88CET, viewing it as a cycle of fifths wrapping within a 7:4
instead of within an octave. So what looks visually like an octave is actually a 7:4 (well, a
close approximation to a 7:4 anyway). 7:4 though is 11 88-cent steps, so I skip the G#/Ab
similarly with how you mentioned leaving out the Es. That then leaves the circle-of-fifth notes on
the white keys and the others on the black keys.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

> > If you lose
> > any of the notes of the tuning, I think he feels that you've destroyed the capabilities of the
> > tuning.
> Well, then by Brian's logic you could never play Pythagorean or 1/4-comma meantone tuning,
> since these tunings have an infinite number of notes.
> Absurd!

Brian's not stupid of course, so I'm sure he'd recognize that concern. I suspect that what he'd
respond that12 is simply way too few. Ivor Darreg probably would have agreed.

Up to a point, I agree with Brian and Ivor. They and I both agree that there are levels of
xenharmonicism, and that any 12-toned tuning where the pitches vary from 12TET by about as much as
a typical acoustic instrument can reproduce 12TET, is in a less-extraordinary class of
microtonality than, say 13TET, which has almost no familiar pitch relationships at all.

Now please, please, please, don't start quoting me as saying that studying, for example, well
temperaments is a worthless endeavor or that those are second-rate tunings, or any such nonsense.
I'm just saying that it's hard to deny that such tunings don't sound nearly as unusual as, for
example, tunings that don't even represent a fifth or an octave at all, or those that provide
melodic step sizes on the order of quarter or eighth tones. If you have a well-tempered
harpsichord composition and 13TET composition played on the radio within a 15-minute span of the
usual classical-radio-station compositions, I guarantee you that vastly more people will notice
something unusual about the 13TET composition than the well-tempered composition.

In a way though, meantone tunings are the reverse; the fewer notes per octave you have the more
likely it is to sound unusual. That is, the more often you play that wolf fifth, the more obvious
it will be that something unusual is going on.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

Brian's not stupid of course, so I'm sure he'd recognize that concern.
I suspect that what he'd
respond that12 is simply way too few. Ivor Darreg probably would have
largely agreed.

Up to a point, I agree with Brian and Ivor. They and I both agree that
there are levels of
xenharmonicism, and that any 12-toned tuning where the pitches vary from
12TET by about as much as
a typical acoustic instrument can reproduce 12TET, is in a
less-extraordinary class of
microtonality than, say 13TET, which has very few familiar pitch
relationships at all.

Now please, please, please, don't start quoting me as saying that, for
example, studying well
temperaments is a worthless endeavor or that those are second-rate
tunings, or any such nonsense.
I'm just saying that it's hard to deny that such tunings don't sound
nearly as unusual as, for
example, tunings that don't even represent a fifth or an octave at all,
or those that provide
melodic step sizes on the order of quarter or eighth tones.

If you have a well-tempered harpsichord composition and 13TET
composition played on the radio
within a 20-minute span of the usual classical-radio-station
compositions, I guarantee you that
vastly more people will notice something unusual about the 13TET
composition than the well-
tempered composition. Does that make 13TET a more interesting tuning?
No, not necessarily;
it depends on what kind of musical effect you're trying to explore.
Well-temperament vs. equal
temperament is a subtle difference compared to 12TET vs. 13TET, but
subtle differences aren't
necessarily any more or less interesting than big ones. On the other
hand, I doubt if many of
us are exploring unusual tunings in an effort to sound more ordinary.

In a way though, meantone tunings are the reverse; the fewer notes per
octave you have the more
likely it is to sound unusual. That is, the more often you play that
wolf fifth, the more obvious
it will be that something unusual is going on.

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

Sorry about the Netscape quirk there - accidentally sending two different versions of my opinion
here. I thought it important to add my acknowledgement below that being more unusual doesn't
necessarily make a tuning more interesting:

Gary Morrison wrote:

> Does that make 13TET a more interesting tuning?
> No, not necessarily;
> it depends on what kind of musical effect you're trying to explore.
> Well-temperament vs. equal
> temperament is a subtle difference compared to 12TET vs. 13TET, but
> subtle differences aren't
> necessarily any more or less interesting than big ones. On the other
> hand, I doubt if many of
> us are exploring unusual tunings in an effort to sound more ordinary.

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17239

>
> In a way though, meantone tunings are the reverse; the fewer notes
per octave you have the more likely it is to sound unusual. That is,
the more often you play that wolf fifth, the more obvious it will be
that something unusual is going on.

Ummm, wouldn't it dependend on the CHOICE of notes played, rather
than the NUMBER of them... i.e. what KEY you are playing in (??)

________ ____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <josephpehrson@c...>
wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17252

> --- In tuning@egroups.com, Gary Morrison <MR88CET@T...> wrote:
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17239
>
> >
> > In a way though, meantone tunings are the reverse; the fewer
notes per octave you have the more likely it is to sound unusual.
That is, the more often you play that wolf fifth, the more obvious it
will be that something unusual is going on.
>
> Ummm, wouldn't it dependend on the CHOICE of notes played, rather
> than the NUMBER of them... i.e. what KEY you are playing in (??)
>

Sorry, Gary... I suddenly understand what you're saying... you mean
including the enharmonic "correcting" notes, or more notes per octave
would make it less strange... of course

_____ ____ ___ _
Joseph Pehrson

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

Gary Morrison wrote,

>> > If you lose
>> > any of the notes of the tuning, I think he feels that you've destroyed
the capabilities of the
>> > tuning.

I wrote,

>> Well, then by Brian's logic you could never play Pythagorean or 1/4-comma
meantone tuning,
>> since these tunings have an infinite number of notes.
>> Absurd!

Gary wrote,

>Brian's not stupid of course, so I'm sure he'd recognize that concern. I
suspect that what he'd
>respond that12 is simply way too few.

Well, for centuries most Western music was created using only 12 tones of
Pythagorean, and for centuries most Western music was created using only 12
tones of meantone.

This is the _tuning_ list after all, isn't it?

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

🔗Gary Morrison <MR88CET@TEXAS.NET>

🔗Paul H. Erlich <PERLICH@ACADIAN-ASSET.COM>

Gary wrote,

>Presumably I'm being dense, but I don't follow you there. I doubt if
you're
>suggesting that "tuning" is strictly, or even largely, a question of how
to
>distribute 12 notes within an octave's span, without admitting the
>possibility of using some other number of tones per octave (or not by
>octaves).

It's not strictly or largely that, but that is a tuning issue, and as long
as you have a piece of music with 12 or fewer notes per octave, you may be
interested in knowing a particular synth's capabilities in that capacity.
For example, for the Microthon I programmed three very different
12-out-of-22-tET tunings on my Ensoniq, as well as one full 22-tET tuning,
so that my keyboardist would have as easy as possible a time with each
piece.