thanks, mats and margo

Margo,

I'll definately download and spin your midi tonight, and
I'll reread and ponder your three-voice thoughts regarding
this scale. Thanks for your interest and comments.

Mats,

>First off,i suppose the"Lars"you mean is me,

Sorry. I usually see your name written in an unpronounceably
manner with questions marks replacing some characters. All
the characters I used did appear in your name, and your name
is the same number of characters with 50% in the same place,
it's probably not a coincidence that it's your middle name as
well! (just kidding.)

>>form from another vantage point. I reversed the L and s and had for
>>all practical purposes a 9 of 24
>> L s L s L s L s L
>0 204 249 453 498 702 747 951 996
>
> Not the same,but totally different.This is nothing else than
> the"Pentaenharmonic"mode that i wrote about a long time ago,in
> this post:
>
> http://www.egroups.co.uk/message/tuning/19786
>
> Except that i used 19tet,which you did not mention.

I'll check out the post you refer to, although 19tet would
seem to compromise the '9 prime limit' qualities, which are
really the only 'consonant' handles on the scale. I wasn't
attempting to fit this 'transposable structure' into an
EDO but if I were, 29 and 53 look to be choices that would
preserve the qualities I found attractive. 19 looks very
different, with L/s = 3 rather than 5 and 4.5 of 29 and
53 respectively.

Bob Valentine

--- In tuning@y..., Robert C Valentine <BVAL@I...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_24312.html#24312

> I'll check out the post you refer to, although 19tet would
> seem to compromise the '9 prime limit' qualities, which are
> really the only 'consonant' handles on the scale. I wasn't
> attempting to fit this 'transposable structure' into an
> EDO but if I were, 29 and 53 look to be choices that would
> preserve the qualities I found attractive. 19 looks very
> different, with L/s = 3 rather than 5 and 4.5 of 29 and
> 53 respectively.

"9 prime limit" ...? 9 is a composite, 3 * 3 or 3^2,
so used as a limit it can only be an odd- or integer-limit.

I haven't been following this thread too closely, so I
apologize if this is redundant...

In case Bob's statement isn't clear:

53-EDO 29-EDO 19-EDO
L = 2^(9/53) = ~ 2.04 2^(5/29) = ~ 2.07 2^(3/19) = ~ 1.89
s = 2^(2/53) = ~ 0.45 2^(1/29) = ~ 0.41 2^(1/19) = ~ 0.63
L/s ratio: 4.5 : 1 5 : 1 3 : 1

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