Another piece with "no tuning file"

Paul E asked for example(s) of Mozart and of Bach in this latest "no
tuning file" 5-limit tuning. I haven't come with any Bach I like
better than the old Bach/Busoni Chaconne in D-, sequenced by Bunji
Hisamori. So, I've done it again - go to

http://www.adaptune.com

Change to Studio J, and download b-b-b.zip. Includes:

b-b-b.mid: as originally recorded by Bunji Hisamori, 12-tET.

b-b-bcs5.mid: 5-limit adaptive tuning, grounded to COFT, with fairly
soft vertical springs, targeting 7th degree at 16/9 of
root.

b-b-bes2.mid: 5-limit adaptive tuning, grounded to COFT, with fairly
soft vertical springs, targeting 7th degree at 9/5 of
root. This is also called the "no tuning file" version.

b-b-bcs7.mid: 7-limit adaptive tuning, grounded to COFT, with fairly
soft vertical springs, targeting 7th degree at 7/4 of
root. WARNING! This version is "inauthentic" and
"inappropriate"; if you like it, as I do, there's
probably something wrong with you. ;->

JdL

As is my habit, I tuned and posted the Bach/Busoni, then listened to it.
And Paul, I have to admit, the "no tuning file" version does sound very
pleasingly solid and steady to me, like a ship at harbor in a glassy
sea. When I move from that to the 7-limit version, the seas are much
rougher. The payoff to cost ratio for this piece in 7 seems
substantially less than for the Mozart.

Maybe it's true what you say, that:

>I think if you accustom yourself to this version, your ear will miss
>the consistent tuning of diatonic minor thirds to 6:5 when you go back
>to the 7-limit version.

I can go either way. But I AM finding, to my surprise, that the sharp
7th degree of the es2 no longer seems instantly objectionable to me!

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>As is my habit, I tuned and posted the Bach/Busoni, then listened to it.
>And Paul, I have to admit, the "no tuning file" version does sound very
>pleasingly solid and steady to me, like a ship at harbor in a glassy
>sea. When I move from that to the 7-limit version, the seas are much
>rougher. The payoff to cost ratio for this piece in 7 seems
>substantially less than for the Mozart.

>Maybe it's true what you say, that:

>>I think if you accustom yourself to this version, your ear will miss
>>the consistent tuning of diatonic minor thirds to 6:5 when you go back
>>to the 7-limit version.

>I can go either way. But I AM finding, to my surprise, that the sharp
>7th degree of the es2 no longer seems instantly objectionable to me!

I'm glad you're starting to hear what I was talking about with respect to
tuning. But, am I correct that you changed the MIDI patch you're using for
this piece? I think I liked the previous timbre better, and the dynamics
seem very extreme and rather inhuman now.

[Paul E:]
>I'm glad you're starting to hear what I was talking about with respect
>to tuning. But, am I correct that you changed the MIDI patch you're
>using for this piece? I think I liked the previous timbre better, and
>the dynamics seem very extreme and rather inhuman now.

Hmmm, no, it's still patch 00 internal (01 if counting 1 .. 128),
acoustic grand piano. You complained about excessive dynamic range
before as well (and I agree). One thing is different: I'm not stripping
out pan and balance control messages; they follow the original because
of the new way channels are assigned on the fly.

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18424.html#18424

> Paul E asked for example(s) of Mozart and of Bach in this latest "no
> tuning file" 5-limit tuning. I haven't come with any Bach I like
> better than the old Bach/Busoni Chaconne in D-, sequenced by Bunji
> Hisamori. So, I've done it again - go to
>
> http://www.adaptune.com
>

Hello John...

I'm usually a great fan of your work, as you know, but WHAT are you
doing here in term of a patch for the Chaconne? It's AWFUL, John...
I can't listen to this "clunky" piano timbre. It has a really
hostile attack too, aside from the fact that having heard this piece
forever as played by a solo violin prejudices me against this sound
from the get go...

It's hard to even listen to it to get the comparisons with this
timbre!

However, what I hear on cursory appraisal is that the new
"ungrounded" version and the 5-limit version seem almost identical.
I'll have to listen some more with a different timbre (or I won't!)
to discover other subtleties...

I agree with the others that the 7-limit is a bit strange with the
thirds in this piece. I wasn't quite as satisfied as I generally am
with the 7-limit, even though I usually like it even where it doesn't
historically pertain...

Change dat patch, John...

_______ ____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

Joseph Pehrson wrote:

> I'm usually a great fan of your work, as you know, but WHAT are you
> doing here in term of a patch for the Chaconne? It's AWFUL, John...
> I can't listen to this "clunky" piano timbre. It has a really
> hostile attack too, aside from the fact that having heard this piece
> forever as played by a solo violin prejudices me against this sound
> from the get go...

Er, I expect he's using the "Grand Piano" patch from General MIDI. If
it sounds clunky, that's your synthesizer, nothing to do with John.
And it you want it on violins, open up the file in a sequencer and
fix it!

Graham

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>I'm usually a great fan of your work, as you know, but WHAT are you
>doing here in term of a patch for the Chaconne? It's AWFUL, John...
>I can't listen to this "clunky" piano timbre. It has a really
>hostile attack too, aside from the fact that having heard this piece
>forever as played by a solo violin prejudices me against this sound
>from the get go...
>
>It's hard to even listen to it to get the comparisons with this
>timbre!
>
>However, what I hear on cursory appraisal is that the new
>"ungrounded" version and the 5-limit version seem almost identical.
>I'll have to listen some more with a different timbre (or I won't!)
>to discover other subtleties...
>
>I agree with the others that the 7-limit is a bit strange with the
>thirds in this piece. I wasn't quite as satisfied as I generally am
>with the 7-limit, even though I usually like it even where it doesn't
>historically pertain...
>
>Change dat patch, John...

Well, unless there's a bug in my processing of the file, which is always
possible, I'm simply faithfully passing on the patch, and the control
messages, chosen by the sequencer, Bunji Hisamori.

Please try the following:

. reset your soundcard or module - there's a file to do that on my
web page, bendRangeSet.mid

. play the original file, b-b-b.mid. Is it bad too? If it's fine,
then I may have added a problem.

I'll do some checking as well. BTW, the term "ungrounded" does not
really apply to any of the versions; they all have grounding springs.

JdL

Both Paul E and Joseph P have complained about the sound of the
Bach/Busoni piece. I've done some investigating, and think I may have
identified the source of the complaint. I find the following control
and voice messages in the b-b-b piece (typical for several channels used
in the original):

B5 00 00 (bank select - coarse)
B5 20 00 (bank select - fine)
C5 00 (voice 00: grand piano)
B5 07 7D (volume - coarse)
B5 01 00 (modulation wheel)
B5 5D 1E (chorus level)
B5 5B 64 (effects level)
B5 0A 37 (pan position - coarse)

No one complained about the Mozart (wamk280); it uses:

C1 00 (voice 00: grand piano)
B1 07 7F (volume - coarse)
B1 0A 2C (pan position - coarse)
B1 79 00 (all controllers off)
B1 5B 65 (effects level)

Of these, the bank select in b-b-b is specifying the default value;
it does not even appear in my tuned versions for that reason. Ditto
the modulation wheel. The voice is the same. The "all controllers off"
should not be necessary if the sound card or module has been reset prior
to playing. Both use effects, at almost identical levels. But one
thing DOES stand out in the b-b-b: the chorus level, which is omitted
from the Mozart, and can be assumed to be zero for that reason.

The doc I have on GM doesn't say much about chorus level, but I do find
that if I strip it out of the b-b-b, it does sound more like the Mozart
piece in timbre, when played on my Roland VSC soft-synth.

I could post another version, but I also think all of us (including me)
are tired of this piece. Will someone bring forth a Bach sequence to be
tuned? One list member, when asked for a recommendation, replied, "All
of it", but there are hundreds if not thousands of Bach sequences
available. Some of the really striking ones are organ works that don't
come across very well in MIDI renditions; others are in harpsichord
voices, which to my ear are harder to distinguish tuning amongst.
Others are just plain music I don't care much for, so am not drawn to.

I've got several Mozart sequences that are really lovely, but we already
have a wonderful Mozart sonata up and running. So... (?)

JdL

In general, I've found using any level of chorus makes a sequence poor
sounding and unrealistic. My preference is for a suitable level of
reverb which is controlled by the external effects parameter.

I have a sequence of Bach's Two Part Invention #13, a fairly short
but beautiful piece that uses most if not all 12 chromatic tones.
Would that do? I like it rendered by an organ, and even a thin
sounding organ voice works well for the piece.

Steve

"John A. deLaubenfels" wrote:

> Both Paul E and Joseph P have complained about the sound of the
> Bach/Busoni piece. I've done some investigating, and think I may have
> identified the source of the complaint. I find the following control
> and voice messages in the b-b-b piece (typical for several channels used
> in the original):
>
> B5 00 00 (bank select - coarse)
> B5 20 00 (bank select - fine)
> C5 00 (voice 00: grand piano)
> B5 07 7D (volume - coarse)
> B5 01 00 (modulation wheel)
> B5 5D 1E (chorus level)
> B5 5B 64 (effects level)
> B5 0A 37 (pan position - coarse)
>
> No one complained about the Mozart (wamk280); it uses:
>
> C1 00 (voice 00: grand piano)
> B1 07 7F (volume - coarse)
> B1 0A 2C (pan position - coarse)
> B1 79 00 (all controllers off)
> B1 5B 65 (effects level)
>
> Of these, the bank select in b-b-b is specifying the default value;
> it does not even appear in my tuned versions for that reason. Ditto
> the modulation wheel. The voice is the same. The "all controllers off"
> should not be necessary if the sound card or module has been reset prior
> to playing. Both use effects, at almost identical levels. But one
> thing DOES stand out in the b-b-b: the chorus level, which is omitted
> from the Mozart, and can be assumed to be zero for that reason.
>
> The doc I have on GM doesn't say much about chorus level, but I do find
> that if I strip it out of the b-b-b, it does sound more like the Mozart
> piece in timbre, when played on my Roland VSC soft-synth.
>
> I could post another version, but I also think all of us (including me)
> are tired of this piece. Will someone bring forth a Bach sequence to be
> tuned? One list member, when asked for a recommendation, replied, "All
> of it", but there are hundreds if not thousands of Bach sequences
> available. Some of the really striking ones are organ works that don't
> come across very well in MIDI renditions; others are in harpsichord
> voices, which to my ear are harder to distinguish tuning amongst.
> Others are just plain music I don't care much for, so am not drawn to.
>
> I've got several Mozart sequences that are really lovely, but we already
> have a wonderful Mozart sonata up and running. So... (?)
>
> JdL
>
>
> 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.

[Steve Sycamore:]
>In general, I've found using any level of chorus makes a sequence poor
>sounding and unrealistic. My preference is for a suitable level of
>reverb which is controlled by the external effects parameter.

Thanks for sharing your expertise, Steve. Can you recommend a web-
accessible source for learning more about how the control parameters
work in General MIDI?

>I have a sequence of Bach's Two Part Invention #13, a fairly short
>but beautiful piece that uses most if not all 12 chromatic tones.
>Would that do? I like it rendered by an organ, and even a thin
>sounding organ voice works well for the piece.

Yes, please e-mail it to me. BTW, I was just on your web site (looking
to see if you'd posted this .mid there) and noticed that "Highland
Dance" is not accessible. Having heard and liked your music, I want it
all!

JdL

John deLaubenfels wrote,

>I could post another version, but I also think all of us (including me)
>are tired of this piece.

Well, it would be nice to see if you can solve the timbre problem that
Joseph and I are experiencing, so why not? Besides, I'm currently so
enthusiastic about the "no tuning file" method that I wouldn't want there to
be any Bach pieces retuned in other ways but not this way . . .

[I wrote:]
>>I could post another version, but I also think all of us (including
>>me) are tired of this piece.

[Paul E:]
>Well, it would be nice to see if you can solve the timbre problem that
>Joseph and I are experiencing, so why not? Besides, I'm currently so
>enthusiastic about the "no tuning file" method that I wouldn't want
>there to be any Bach pieces retuned in other ways but not this way . . .

Paul, I can refuse you nothing! :-) Look for b-b-bj.zip some time in
the next coupla hours - exactly as before, except the chorus command
removed. I think that should solve the timbre problem, but please let
me know if it doesn't!

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18424.html#18454

Besides, I'm currently so
> enthusiastic about the "no tuning file" method that I wouldn't want
there to be any Bach pieces retuned in other ways but not this way .
.

OK, I "fess up" or I'm not going to be learning anything... What are
these pieces being ground to, if there's "no tuning file...??"

_____ ____ _____ ___
JP

[Paul E:]
>>Besides, I'm currently so enthusiastic about the "no tuning file"
>>method that I wouldn't want there to be any Bach pieces retuned in
>>other ways but not this way .

[Joseph Perhson:]
>OK, I "fess up" or I'm not going to be learning anything... What are
>these pieces being ground to, if there's "no tuning file...??"

Joseph, perhaps it would help to refer back to

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/7890
http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12668

I use three kinds of springs: vertical, horizontal, and grounding. The
type affected by having "no tuning file" is vertical, and only vertical.
There is no change to horizontal and grounding springs.

Clearer now?

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18424.html#18489

> Joseph, perhaps it would help to refer back to
>
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/7890
> http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/12668
>
> I use three kinds of springs: vertical, horizontal, and grounding.
The type affected by having "no tuning file" is vertical, and only
vertical.
> There is no change to horizontal and grounding springs.
>
> Clearer now?
>
> JdL

Thank you so much, John, for taking the time to go over this. Yes, I
do remember studying carefully both these posts, the early one from
over 1 year ago! Obviously, I was confusing the "grounding" springs
with the vertical ones.

And, in the exercise you were recently conducting, Paul Erlich
suggested that the vertical springs would be virtually identical to
12-tET, which was, apparently, why that tuning file was eliminated.

However, I don't get why the vertical just intonation springs would
be virtually identical to 12-tET. That's the "stumper" for me...

________ _____ _____ __
Joseph Pehrson

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>Thank you so much, John, for taking the time to go over this. Yes, I
>do remember studying carefully both these posts, the early one from
>over 1 year ago! Obviously, I was confusing the "grounding" springs
>with the vertical ones.

>And, in the exercise you were recently conducting, Paul Erlich
>suggested that the vertical springs would be virtually identical to
>12-tET, which was, apparently, why that tuning file was eliminated.

>However, I don't get why the vertical just intonation springs would
>be virtually identical to 12-tET. That's the "stumper" for me...

Joe, I don't know what post you're remembering, but I feel quite sure
that Paul would not have made such a statement! The only correlation
I can draw (speculatively) is that you're thinking of one of my posts,
in which I described that vertical springs which begin life targeted
to 12-tET are re-wired to non-self-consistent JI (5-limit) before the
matrix relaxation begins.

Perhaps it would be good to review what happens:

100 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
200 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
300 cent springs are re-targeted to 315.64 cents (6/5)
400 cent springs are re-targeted to 386.31 cents (5/4)
500 cent springs are re-targeted to 498.04 cents (4/3)
600 cent springs are reduced by 1/100

With the rest of the octave the mirror of the above; i.e., 700 is like
500, etc.

I do "deprive" the program of JI tuning files to force this to happen.
This might be part of the source of the confusion.

Are things becomming clearer?

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18424.html#18496

>
> Perhaps it would be good to review what happens:
>
> 100 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
> 200 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
> 300 cent springs are re-targeted to 315.64 cents (6/5)
> 400 cent springs are re-targeted to 386.31 cents (5/4)
> 500 cent springs are re-targeted to 498.04 cents (4/3)
> 600 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
>
> With the rest of the octave the mirror of the above; i.e., 700 is
like 500, etc.
>
> I do "deprive" the program of JI tuning files to force this to
happen.
> This might be part of the source of the confusion.
>

But in your new "es" tuning experiment, the vertical tuning file is
completely eliminated, yes? Why...?

[I wrote:]
>>Perhaps it would be good to review what happens:
>>
>> 100 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
>> 200 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
>> 300 cent springs are re-targeted to 315.64 cents (6/5)
>> 400 cent springs are re-targeted to 386.31 cents (5/4)
>> 500 cent springs are re-targeted to 498.04 cents (4/3)
>> 600 cent springs are reduced by 1/100
>>
>>With the rest of the octave the mirror of the above; i.e., 700 is
>>like 500, etc.
>>
>>I do "deprive" the program of JI tuning files to force this to happen.
>>This might be part of the source of the confusion.

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>But in your new "es" tuning experiment, the vertical tuning file is
>completely eliminated, yes? Why...?

In effect but not in fact. I give it only a 12-tET tuning file to
chew on, so it's forced to target every interval (briefly) to 12-tET,
then separate logic re-targets the important 5-limit intervals as shown
above.

(My program, if given no tuning file whatever, gives the digital
equivalent of the finger to the person who runs it. It was much easier
to accomplish this goal doing it as above).

JdL

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

/tuning/topicId_18424.html#18499

>
> [Joseph Pehrson:]
> >But in your new "es" tuning experiment, the vertical tuning file
is
> >completely eliminated, yes? Why...?
>
> In effect but not in fact. I give it only a 12-tET tuning file to
> chew on, so it's forced to target every interval (briefly) to
12-tET, then separate logic re-targets the important 5-limit
intervals
as shown above.
>
> (My program, if given no tuning file whatever, gives the digital
> equivalent of the finger to the person who runs it. It was much
easier to accomplish this goal doing it as above).
>
> JdL

That's funny John... FINALLY, I think I'm understanding this. So,
because of the other springs, this vertical file becomes somewhat
redundant...

_____ ____ ____ ___ _
JP

[I wrote:]
>>(My program, if given no tuning file whatever, gives the digital
>>equivalent of the finger to the person who runs it. It was much
>>easier to accomplish this goal doing it as above).

[Joseph Pehrson:]
>That's funny John... FINALLY, I think I'm understanding this. So,
>because of the other springs, this vertical file becomes somewhat
>redundant...

It becomes moot - everything it targets is either reduced in strength
to near nothing, or re-targeted to some other interval. I think you've
got it!

JdL