this 'n' that on the tuning lists

Dave Keenan said :

> Oh no! Paul you should have done it the other way! Set up a new group
> called "no-math-tuning" and invite everyone who thinks they can
> discuss tuning without math, to go there.
>

I agree, and in-fact, that list exists and is called
practicalmicrotonality. Tuning List classic' can stay with its 'focus'
and spawn sublists when a particular topic gets so heavy as to require
a new list. Although this has only happened with Harmonic Entropy, I
can see it happenning with "tuning-programming" topics or
"tuning-spirituality" specific topics.

Not that I think it ever had to, but...

re: Gary Morrisons points. There have been a LOT of posts about music,
usually put on the net somewhere as mp3 or midi files. There was a
poster named Lars who was doing a lot of this. Perhaps they
don't lead to as much discussion. Usually its something along the lines
of "wow, that was great, how did you record it", or "my patches are
lousy and what is the pitchbend supposed to be set to?"

I don't have a lot of time for downloading non-text, nor am I
particularly equipped to deal with audio data (or HTML data which
may have been what blew up my email and made me lose about 40 digests
from the four tuning related lists I am now subscribed to). I
buy CDs though...

I suppose this was a meta thing, and that all I've done was beat a
dead horse to death, but I could not find that or any other new
groups at Yahoo.

Re another post of mine... are

BBBBaaa BBBBBaa
BBBaBaa BBBBaBa
BBBaaBa BBBaBBa x
BBaBBaa
BBaBaBa x

really ALL the unique seven note diatonic sets (not counting
rotations?. (I've marked those that are "one step transposable"
with an x).

What is the quick way I would have found the number

'8'

from

seven notes
two step sizes

or, what is the formula that I would divide by 14 at the end to
eliminate rotations and whether B or a is larger?

Re : thread launched with my name about neutral thirds, I am
honored but unworthy. I'll try to piece together some of that
data sometime and figure out if I can create the perceptual
difference for myself. I will probably look at it in the
context of the 7ED2 approximation in 31ED2

4 5 4 5 4 5 4
0 4 9 13 18 22 27 31
1/1 11/10 11/9 4/3 3/2 18/11 20/11 2/1
12/11 44/27 11/6

just to show some of what it represents. Of course, since the
oddball is a pretty good 6:5, it may be hard to make all the
11:9's sound like diferent thirds, but interesting...

Anyone experienced with this scale feel free to comment...

Bob Valentine