Re: [tuning] advantages of 72-tET (was: my music - and the ANS synthesizer)

Joe!
I based this info on what I had gotten from Erv who figured it out quite a few years ago.
Before i tuned up my 72 tone just based on the 4)8 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 CPS. Don't remember why but
the consistency table mentioned below did not take into consideration if an interval was off in
the same or different direction than the other. I couldn't remember about the 17 and thank David
Beardsley for bringing it up.

monz wrote:

> I was looking for the Consistency Table (by Paul Erlich or Hahn,
> I forget which) that was stored at the Mills College FTP site,
> and it doesn't seem to exist any more. I believe that's what
> Kraig means here: it's consistent in terms of notation to
> 16-limit or somewhere around there.

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

The Wandering Medicine Show
Wed. 8-9 KXLU 88.9 fm

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20622.html#20622

> Joe!
> I based this info on what I had gotten from Erv who figured
> it out quite a few years ago. Before i tuned up my 72 tone just
> based on the 4)8 1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 CPS. Don't remember why but
> the consistency table mentioned below did not take into
> consideration if an interval was off in the same or different
> direction than the other. I couldn't remember about the 17
> and thank David Beardsley for bringing it up.

Right - you get a nod from me too, Dave, for supplying the
correct consistency limit for 72-tET.

I wonder how widespread interest in 72-tET is around the world?

As Dan pointed out, there's quite a "72 scene" happening in
Boston, and both Haba and Wyshnedgradsky in the 1930s or so
advocated it as a "pantonal" system that provided lots of
different avenues for ET work.

And as Sims has pointed out, 72-tET is audibly close enough
to his 37-limit JI that the difference doesn't bother him
in his own compositions.

I'll mention again that the VanDuyne / Maneri book for 72-tET
ear-training is dynamite, and IMO a very viable alternative to
Johnny Reinhard's 1200-tET method (which is also good).

There's also been a lot posted on 72-tET in the Archives.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

jpehrson@rcn.com wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <MONZ@J...> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_20571.html#20621
>
> > >
> > > > Also, I wish somebody on the list would refresh my memory
> > > > as to all the advantages of 72-tET.
> >
> >
> > I was looking for the Consistency Table (by Paul Erlich or Hahn,
> > I forget which) that was stored at the Mills College FTP site,
> > and it doesn't seem to exist any more.
>
> Hi Monz!
>
> Actually, I believe the Mills College FTP site is now GONE! I was
> also trying to access it with FTP client software... That's why it is
> good that Robert Walker is trying to figure out how to save THIS
> archive!
>
> Thanks for the information on 72-tET... I am adding it to my "saved"
> materials...

Is this same table on this page?

http://sites.netscape.net/masanoritagawa/homepage

--
* 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
* http://mp3.com/davidbeardsley

Hey folks -- I'm back for a bit . . .

--- In tuning@y..., Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Don't remember why but
> the consistency table mentioned below did not take into
consideration if an interval was off in
> the same or different direction than the other.

On the contrary -- that's the whole _point_ of consistency!

> I couldn't remember about the 17 and thank David
> Beardsley for bringing it up.

Missed that, but yes, 72-tET is consistent through the 17-limit. See
the bottom of the Tagawa website for more details.