Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: Microtonal Synthesis and octave/non-octave tuning issues

Hello, there, and on the discussion regarding Brian McLaren's views of
synthesizer microtuning capabilities, I'd like to offer a possible
reconciliation between these views and those of others such as Paul
Erlich, as someone who deeply admires the erudition and musical
contributions of people on both sides.

Here it may be helpful in speaking to these issues to define the
application for which a given synthesizer is intended. Clearly we're
comparing capabilities to play in a variety of tunings, but just what
are we after in deciding whether a given synthesizer is "useful" or
not for this or that musical style?

Often we tend to use general terms like "alternative tunings" or
"microtonal music," but these terms are indeed general.

For example, if we seek some alternative to defining "microtonal"
music as "music in any tuning except ones I don't care for," then we
might say that _all_ music is "microtonal," or try to articulate some
rough definition like "involving intervals smaller than a usual scale
step in this or that musical tradition."

If we're addressing the kinds of tunings often discussed in this
forum, then maybe we have at least three categories of interest:

(1) Tunings calling for 12 or fewer notes per octave, with 12 an
adequate number, for example, for a great range of Western European
repertories in medieval Pythagorean, Renaissance/Manneristic meantone,
or later Baroque/Classic/Romantic well-temperaments, not to mention
20th-century serial compositions in 12-tone equal temperament
(12-tET).

(2) Tunings calling for between 13 and 24 notes per octave, ranging
from experimental Pythagorean, meantone, or multi-prime just
intonation (JI) schemes to complete equal temperaments such as 22-tET,
or subsets of many others.

(3) Tunings calling for more than 24 notes per octave, for example
equal temperaments or other full circulating tunings requiring this
larger number of notes.

In category (1), a single keyboard/synthesizer with octave tuning
capabilities should meet most needs, and I would say that this is a
non-trivial set of music ranging from the historical repertories
mentioned above to pentatonic and heptatonic schemes from various
parts of the world to 11-tET, for example. This category also includes
subsets of up to 12 notes from regular tunings that happen also to be
n-tET's which would close with a larger set of notes.

In category (2), we could use a system of two independently tuneable
keyboards each with its own octave tuning, either supported by
separate synthesizers or by a single synthesizer with "part-tuning"
capabilities. Of course, some people for at least some applications in
this category might prefer a custom keyboard with more than 12 notes
per octave, and that could well call for non-octave-tuning
capabilities for a synthesizer supporting it.

In category (3), we clearly need non-octave tuning -- except in a
system based on three or more 12-note keyboards, maybe each supported
by its own synthesizers (the polyphonic limits of a single synthesizer
even with part-tunings could become an issue here).

Maybe my discussion of category (2) is in part hypothetical, because
I'm not sure about synthesizers which have part-tuning capabilities
but not support for non-octave tunings. Of course, it's further a plus
to have non-octave tunings available as an option even if one chooses
to use octave tunings on two keyboards.

One possible addition to the Microtonal Synthesis site might be a
fuller discussion of these points with some musical examples of each
of the three categories, and maybe some material on the fit between
synthesizer tunings and alternative keyboards with more than 12 notes
per octave.

From what I've seen, John Loffink's Microtonal Synthesis site is a
helpful and informative resource for which many of us have benefitted,
and if we approach this issue as an opportunity to suggest how the
site might be made even more helpful, isn't that a friendly outlook
for the new year?

Most respectfully,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

Margo Schulter wrote:

> In category (3), we clearly need non-octave tuning -- except in a
> system based on three or more 12-note keyboards, maybe each supported
> by its own synthesizers (the polyphonic limits of a single synthesizer
> even with part-tunings could become an issue here).

Well, quite. Even if you're using a non-octave tuning, octave-based
tuning tables are far from useless.

> Maybe my discussion of category (2) is in part hypothetical, because
> I'm not sure about synthesizers which have part-tuning capabilities
> but not support for non-octave tunings. Of course, it's further a plus
> to have non-octave tunings available as an option even if one chooses
> to use octave tunings on two keyboards.

Any fully GM-compliant synth should support the coarse and fine tuning
parameters. I thought these were something to do with pitch bends, but
apparently they're for transposition. So, any of the 16 (15 if it's
strict GM) channels can be tuned up or down an arbitrary number of cents.
Combine that with an octave tuning table, and you can do a fair bit.
It's less convenient than a full keyboard table, but certainly not
useless.

The transposition can also be changed in real-time. So, if you're playing
a 12 note riff in 88-CET, and you want to change "key", well, no problem.

Even if you don't have that capability, you may well find some
instruments don't even need more than 12 notes.

It's nice to see pitch bends being counted as "microtonal" now. There was
a time when people said they were "useless" as well. Now I've got
software to add them automatically, it means even synths without tuning
tables cease to be useless for microtonal work.

So let's remember there are still big problems with this method. You're
essentially limited to 16 (or 15) note polyphony. And with the software
as it stands, the pitch bends have to be embedded in the MIDI file. So,
if you move notes around in a sequencer, the pitch bends won't go with
them. It would be nice if somebody wrote a program that could listen on
multiple channels, and so the retuning. Until they do, pitch bend tuning
isn't really suitable for serious work. So I'd rather have octave-based
tables any day.

My Korg X5D has one user-defined octave-based tuning table. It also
supports the GM transposition messages, +/- 2 octaves, on 16 channels by
the looks of it. But the combination mode lets you go further.

You can combine 8 voices at a time. Each is assigned a channel, and a key
and velocity range. And each can be transposed +/- 2 octaves with 1 cent
precision. So, if you only want one timbre (as you thought the machine
was useless, that's one better than you expected) you can get nearly 8
octaves of, say, 88-CET or my schismic fourth tuning, by combining the
user tuning table with key ranges and transposition.

Not that I've tried this yet. It'd be much easier to throw up a
full-keyboard table in Scala and send it across. But for a spare
instrument, octave tunings are a lot better than nothing. More than that,
they're useful to have around. Given a choice, I'd have both, like on my
TX81Z. If you spend a lot of time using octave-based scales, it's a real
convenience to only have to key in 12 numbers on the front panel.

Yes, for perfect microtonality you need arbitrary tuning to better than
0.1 cent precision. If that's what you want, stop complaining and start
saving up for Kyma. I did.

Graham

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "M. Schulter" <MSCHULTER@V...> wrote:
>
> Here it may be helpful in speaking to these issues to define the
> application for which a given synthesizer is intended. Clearly we're
> comparing capabilities to play in a variety of tunings, but just
what
> are we after in deciding whether a given synthesizer is "useful" or
> not for this or that musical style?

Margo and all,

I think we have failed to discuss in depth, another of the most
important features of microtonal synthesizers; one that goes directly
hand-in-hand with issues concerning tuning capabilities. That of the
synthesizer's method of tone generation.

To elaborate; Basically there are two general categories of tone
generation which are at work in almost any kind of sound synthesis:
1. "Oscillator Synthesis", and 2. "Sample Playback". Both of these
having distinct advantages and disadvantages.

For "Oscillator Synthesis", possibly its greatest microtonally
related attribute is the ability to synthesize perfectly sustaining
tones (if desired), and perhaps an occasional weakness, is that while
it can be capable of doing *some* good acoustic emulations, it is
perhaps weaker on this point and better at generation of
more "electronic" sounding timbres.

For "Sample Playback", its strength is the ability to render more
convincing emulations of acoustic instruments, *BUT* - and I mean
major *but* for the microtonalist, is in the case of "General Midi
Sound Cards" and "General Midi Modules". Wherever the sample playback
General Midi sound set is at work, one will observe the uniquely
idiosyncratic behavior of short "Looped Samples". Since I have been
actively doing my own electronic sound design for over 22 years, I
will allow myself the license to point this out to folks that may be
getting ready to "drop the wad" on a new synth.

Try this little test with your GM_whatever (I've got 2 too!): Pick
out any single acoustic instrument sample, and remove all reverb and
chorus (please note that GM sound designers bathe their sounds in an
ocean of effects, in an effort to disguise what I'm revealing here).
Hold down a single note in the middle range of the keyboard and
listen. Hear that? That bumpy cycled sound you hear is from trying to
make sounds as short as they can be, by looping the sustain stage of
a timbre. This is important with these GM modules, because the sound
designer's goal is to shoe-horn as much as possible into the small
amount of available memory. Now play a couple of notes - what do you
hear? Twice as much "warbbly/skippy" effect! I submit here that
this "broken record effect" *does* affect ones perception of
microtonal subtleties (more than a 768 tuning unit synth!), and where
one is solely reliant upon this method of sound generation for their
microtonal work, and is seeking to perceive "audible" tuning effects,
then there is no doubt that this will "influence" the way you hear
microtonality. This speaks a little to my personal feeling about the
futility of doing convincing orchestral emulations with these GM
things (something I've did hours-upon-hours of recordings of). It's
always going to take active participation and imagination from the
listener to appreciate the "cheese factor", because more than likely,
they'll be more preoccupied with how *unlike* an orchestra it really
is, an not even pay attention to the content of the music.

However, with a full blown sampler, one does not necessarily have to
loop sounds, but may have long single tones from real instruments,
thus avoiding the GM "bumps in the road". Certainly this is the
better solution.

So, I think these are two important points to consider when thinking
about new sound modules/keyboards. I routinely use both in my work,
and have sort of grown toward accepting the idiosyncratic behavior of
these instruments, in the way one would a guitar or any acoustic
instrument. But I must here state my feeling that "factory patches
must die". This will drag us all into a pit if we don't get the
point when putting out CDs of microtonal music. Folks may go away
from the experience of that "Grand GM Opus", thinking microtonalists
should seek psychiatric help. Dig into sound design folks! For the
cause! Electronic music just plain "sucks" if you don't; it doesn't
matter how you tune it! GM is the progeny of Grandma's old organ,
with the Foxtrot and Waltz beats, and the old Casio VL-Tone (I know
you young whipper snappers don't remember that glorious sine toy!);
where the effort to provide the commercial "Swiss Army Knife" sound
set, leaves the microtonalist with something that millions of other
folks have by exact factory duplication. Microtonalists would never
accept a fixed factory tuning set, and should also *never* accept the
factory sound set for professional recording work.

I'll wrap this up with the following suggestion: Only release music
that is impeccable! You know what I'm talking about. When you are
composing, producing and recording music, think about your favorite
pieces of great music, that would serve as models for the criteria
of "long term listenability". And ask yourself: "Can my music endure
repeated listenings?" "And do I ever want to hear this again?" Well
folks if the answer is no to either of the questions, it's better for
the entire microtonal movement that you keep it right in the old
bedroom studio. Let's raise the level of musical quality and thus
raise the cause of microtonality, that we so adore, into public
perception. I submit this will never happen if we release microtonal
music that is incapable of enduring repeated listenings. Get a model
of excellence in mind for yourself and ask honestly how your work
compares to your cherished model.

Only release music that is impeccable! I suggest to withdraw music
that you know yourself has not achieved this, as everything that
comes out of our quarter, represents our cause, so there is no room
for sloth and slackers, and lame music - no matter what your chosen
compositional idiom. We never know when someone who's curious about
microtonality will come to our MP3.com pages or home pages, and have
the "first impressions are the most dramatic" experience. Always ask
yourself: "What will be the dramatic "first impression" that I will
convey to the uninitiated, or seasoned listener?"

Only release music that is impeccable! This should become our
Microtonal Mantra.

>
> For example, if we seek some alternative to defining "microtonal"
> music as "music in any tuning except ones I don't care for," then we
> might say that _all_ music is "microtonal," or try to articulate
some
> rough definition like "involving intervals smaller than a usual
scale
> step in this or that musical tradition."

This is a good point, and I think this is wrapped in one's subjective
view and experience. It also brings to mind the repeated statement in
this forum of "music sounding in tune".

I propose that when one is preparing to use the well worn "this music
should, could, would, does or doesn't sound in tune", they should
fill in the blank at the end of the sentence with "IMHO relative to
____." Because it's the "relative to ____." that speaks to what
tuning systems you are accustomed to hearing. Now, this is not to re-
stir the sediments of the OED/JI/Keenanian definition thing (god
forbid!!!) - I'm not talking about intoning 2 intervals and listening
for justness. I'm talking about full musical textures, in the context
of full compositions - the reality outside the laboratory. When one
says "in-tune relative to ____.", they are merely reflecting their
subjective experience (or lack thereof), of broad spectrums of tuning
possibilities. If one is only used to 5 to 7 Limit JI or 12 tET, then
more complex structures will be beyond the scope of their listening
experience, thereby possibly being perceived as "out of tune". I like
to refer to this as "personal tuning conditioning"; something I
believe all microtonalists experience (just like cultural tuning
conditioning, except on a much more accelerated level). I avoid this
absurd description for compositions, and only find value in it when
listening to isolated intervals outside of the context of fully
orchestrated pieces. It makes one wonder what would be the opinion of
the "out of tuners" about Arabic music or Gamelan for instance - see
what I mean? Take off your lab coats and banish this from your
thought process (it's so obviously based in subjectivity)!

>
> If we're addressing the kinds of tunings often discussed in this
> forum, then maybe we have at least three categories of interest:
>
> (1) Tunings calling for 12 or fewer notes per octave, with 12 an
>
> (2) Tunings calling for between 13 and 24 notes per octave, ranging
>
> (3) Tunings calling for more than 24 notes per octave, for example
>
> In category (1), a single keyboard/synthesizer with octave tuning
> capabilities should meet most needs, >
> In category (2), we could use a system of two independently tunable
> keyboards each with its own octave tuning, >
> In category (3), we clearly need non-octave tuning -- except in a
> system based on three or more 12-note keyboards, >
>

This is a very good breakdown, and I would like to say that what I
think Mr. McLaren was trying to get at, is that if the synth has the
full keyboard arbitrary tuning capability, then it would fill all of
the above needs in one box. This is a most important feature for
anyone who wishes to have the flexibility to tune anyway they see
fit, or need to. I can tell you that I wish every synth I had could
do this, but the sadness is, I've got a few modules that will only
support octave tunings, so I must do some creative subsetting with
these. It would be quite a tuning utopia to have full retuning for
all though. Believe me folks, you *will* want this capability in your
synth. You may not realize it at first, but you will. Don't settle
for less. I will never again.

And while we are on the topic:

In:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/16911

Jacky Ligon wrote,

>>Someone
>>really thought this "768" out really well - it works!

>Paul Erlich wrote:

>I don't know . . . Daniel Wolf is fond of pointing out that in 768,
the best
>approximation of 3/2, doubled, does not equal the best approximation
of 9/4.
>In other words, it's not consistent in the 9-limit. Meanwhile, 1200-
tET is
>consistent in the 9-limit.

But Paul, this shouldn't be a problem for you, since you have told me
in the past how you like to tune a few cents away from just, to avoid
phase locked partials. So you should consider this a feature of a 768
tuning base instrument (as I do). I'd wager that at just about any
given moment of playing the guitar, from varying finger pressures on
the strings, one would experience greater tuning discrepancies than
would be found on a 768 fixed tuning table synth. And it's certainly
more than likely that the average overall adherence (in the course of
performance) to the desired tuning would be at least as good, if not
much better, and more consistent, than the guitar. What was
that "Barbershop Tolerance" again?

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

🔗M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@teleport.com>

> I think we have failed to discuss in depth, another of the most
> important features of microtonal synthesizers; one that goes directly
> hand-in-hand with issues concerning tuning capabilities. That of the
> synthesizer's method of tone generation.
>
> To elaborate; Basically there are two general categories of tone
> generation which are at work in almost any kind of sound synthesis:
> 1. "Oscillator Synthesis", and 2. "Sample Playback". Both of these
> having distinct advantages and disadvantages.

I'm not sure whether this is a useful distinction or not. All *digital*
sound generation systems, at least those I'm aware of, operate by using an
*algorithm* to generate samples of a *fixed size* at a *fixed sampling rate*
suitably above something called the *Nyquist rate*. This fixed sampling rate
is necessary for a lot of the mathematical analysis, aka digital signal
processing, to work. It is not the optimum choice, just a convenience. If
that reminds you of 12-TET as a convenience relative to all possible tuning
schemes, that was my intention. :-)

Given that fact, whether the samples are generated by oscillator and filter
algorithms, physical modeling algorithms, sample table lookup or some
combination of these is more or less irrelevant. The choice of algorithm
depends mostly on the cost of computation ... high-speed computers and DSP
chips are more expensive than low-speed ones, multiprocessor systems are
more expensive than single processor systems, large memories are more
expensive than small ones, and complicated algorithms are more expensive to
develop and debug than simple algorithms. There is also the issue of whether
the sound needs to be generated in real time or not. In studio-based
composition, one can let a computer grind for an hour to produce a minute of
sound; on the stage, one cannot.

> For "Oscillator Synthesis", possibly its greatest microtonally
> related attribute is the ability to synthesize perfectly sustaining
> tones (if desired), and perhaps an occasional weakness, is that while
> it can be capable of doing *some* good acoustic emulations, it is
> perhaps weaker on this point and better at generation of
> more "electronic" sounding timbres.
>
> For "Sample Playback", its strength is the ability to render more
> convincing emulations of acoustic instruments, *BUT* - and I mean
> major *but* for the microtonalist, is in the case of "General Midi
> Sound Cards" and "General Midi Modules". Wherever the sample playback
> General Midi sound set is at work, one will observe the uniquely
> idiosyncratic behavior of short "Looped Samples". Since I have been
> actively doing my own electronic sound design for over 22 years, I
> will allow myself the license to point this out to folks that may be
> getting ready to "drop the wad" on a new synth.

I'm not sure how this relates to microtonality. My understanding is that
microtonality and its cousin xentonality require accurate pitch and spectrum
generation above all else. This is something that all digital sound creation
methods share, and not unique to any specific algorithm.

Again, is the goal is "convincing emulations of acoustic instruments" or
microtonal/xentonal music? I haven't heard any of your music, so I don't
know what sorts of sounds you use, and, more important, whether you are a
studio composer or a composer for live performance. That makes a big
difference.

[snip]

> But I must here state my feeling that "factory patches
> must die". This will drag us all into a pit if we don't get the
> point when putting out CDs of microtonal music. Folks may go away
> from the experience of that "Grand GM Opus", thinking microtonalists
> should seek psychiatric help. Dig into sound design folks! For the
> cause! Electronic music just plain "sucks" if you don't; it doesn't
> matter how you tune it! GM is the progeny of Grandma's old organ,
> with the Foxtrot and Waltz beats, and the old Casio VL-Tone (I know
> you young whipper snappers don't remember that glorious sine toy!);
> where the effort to provide the commercial "Swiss Army Knife" sound
> set, leaves the microtonalist with something that millions of other
> folks have by exact factory duplication. Microtonalists would never
> accept a fixed factory tuning set, and should also *never* accept the
> factory sound set for professional recording work.

Here I agree with you, although this is a hard prescription for someone
without your 22 years of sound design experience. Most of us are basically
musicians; we need an interface other than pages of equations or code, we
need *rapid* auditory feedback and a *parsimonious* set of tweakable
parameters, and we need to keep the costs under control. I know *I* can do
everything in CSound or SAOL (essentially free), but that's going to leave a
lot of you with an "instrument" that is basically useless. That's one of the
reasons physical modeling is so popular. You get more or less immediate
feedback, there aren't too many parameters to tune and it's relatively
inexpensive computationally.

> I'll wrap this up with the following suggestion: Only release music
> that is impeccable! You know what I'm talking about. When you are
> composing, producing and recording music, think about your favorite
> pieces of great music, that would serve as models for the criteria
> of "long term listenability". And ask yourself: "Can my music endure
> repeated listenings?" "And do I ever want to hear this again?" Well
> folks if the answer is no to either of the questions, it's better for
> the entire microtonal movement that you keep it right in the old
> bedroom studio. Let's raise the level of musical quality and thus
> raise the cause of microtonality, that we so adore, into public
> perception. I submit this will never happen if we release microtonal
> music that is incapable of enduring repeated listenings. Get a model
> of excellence in mind for yourself and ask honestly how your work
> compares to your cherished model.
>
> Only release music that is impeccable! I suggest to withdraw music
> that you know yourself has not achieved this, as everything that
> comes out of our quarter, represents our cause, so there is no room
> for sloth and slackers, and lame music - no matter what your chosen
> compositional idiom. We never know when someone who's curious about
> microtonality will come to our MP3.com pages or home pages, and have
> the "first impressions are the most dramatic" experience. Always ask
> yourself: "What will be the dramatic "first impression" that I will
> convey to the uninitiated, or seasoned listener?"
>
> Only release music that is impeccable! This should become our
> Microtonal Mantra.

I don't think it's possible to know what is "impeccable" immediately,
although it is usually possible to recognize stuff that really stinks right
away! :-) Today's concert repertoire is filled with works -- works we
cherish today -- that were greeted with boos, disdain from critics, and
worse. In my mind, the cardinal sins are two:

1. To produce *no* music because one is a perfectionist and must have it
exactly right, and

2. To produce music that is boring. I would rather have people scream that
*my* music is terrible than have them *ignore* my music out of boredom while
screaming that *someone else's* really reeks. Because that someone else is
going to be a Beethoven, Stravinsky or Shostakovich.
--
M. Edward Borasky
mailto:znmeb@teleport.com
http://www.borasky-research.com/

"There's No Fuel Like an Old Fuel" -- National Coal Institute

🔗justin white <JUSTINTONATION@HOTMAIL.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

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

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/17022

LIGON:
> [snip]
>
> > But I must here state my feeling that "factory patches
> > must die". This will drag us all into a pit if we don't get the
> > point when putting out CDs of microtonal music. Folks may go away
> > from the experience of that "Grand GM Opus", thinking
microtonalists should seek psychiatric help. Dig into sound design
folks! For the cause! Electronic music just plain "sucks" if you
don't; it doesn't matter how you tune it!
>

BORASKY:
> I don't think it's possible to know what is "impeccable"
immediately, although it is usually possible to recognize stuff that
really stinks right away! :-) Today's concert repertoire is filled
with works -- works we cherish today -- that were greeted with boos,
disdain from critics, and worse. In my mind, the cardinal sins are
two:
>
> 1. To produce *no* music because one is a perfectionist and must
have it exactly right, and
>
> 2. To produce music that is boring. I would rather have people
scream that *my* music is terrible than have them *ignore* my music
out of boredom while screaming that *someone else's* really reeks.
Because that someone else is going to be a Beethoven, Stravinsky or
Shostakovich.

This is really an interesting discussion, and it reminds me of some
of the comments Kyle Gann made. He was saying that people were
complaining about some of the sounds of his synthesized music because
he used too many sounds "out of the box."

He was hoping that people would overlook some of the sonic
inadequacies in favor of tuning and structural interest.

I think it is a pretty hard call to determine whether people will or
will not. And, it should be remembered that Jacky Ligon is
*particularly* adept and interested in electronic sound quality....
whether general listeners will be that particular is another matter...
________ _____ ___ __
Joseph Pehrson

P.S. Gann is one of the "chosen" composers to be featured in Lincoln
Center's big Fred Sherry extravaganza at Alice Tully Hall, so
apparently his presets aren't affecting him so much in that way!

Re: Microtonal Synthesis and octave/non-octave tuning issues

🔗M. Schulter <MSCHULTER@VALUE.NET>

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

🔗M. Edward Borasky <znmeb@teleport.com>

🔗justin white <JUSTINTONATION@HOTMAIL.COM>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <josephpehrson@compuserve.com>

🔗Joseph Pehrson <pehrson@pubmedia.com>

🔗D.Stearns <STEARNS@CAPECOD.NET>